"Today, alongside the European Union, the United States has adopted the position that its mission is to promote democracy worldwide. Leaders in Washington regularly argue that if they fail to take up this mission, authoritarian governments will exploit American restraint and join forces—not just to undermine American power, but to destroy democracy itself, depriving the United States of its cherished freedoms.

It is remarkable that this concept has become a key tenet of American foreign policy without any serious debate in Congress, in the media, or within the foreign policy community. At the heart of this approach is the presupposition that democracy is inherently superior to other forms of government, both morally and in terms of its ability to deliver prosperity and security. Democracy promotion is assumed to be a longstanding part of the U.S. foreign policy tradition rather than a radical departure from it. The Biden administration talks as though the world at large—apart from evil tyrants—will welcome its push for democracy and accept the self-evident righteousness of America and the European Union ...

In the United States, the Founding Fathers similarly tolerated slavery, making its implicit incorporation in the U.S. Constitution.
....
UNTIL THE end of the Cold War, democracy promotion was not a constituent element of the U.S. foreign policy tradition—the term “democracy” does not even appear in the U.S. Constitution. The United States did not wage war to spread democracy, even in its own sphere of influence in the Americas. The NATO alliance, at its very inception in 1949, was directed squarely against the Soviet geopolitical threat and willingly embraced authoritarian members such as Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar, whom many considered fascist. Other American allies of the early Cold War period included South Korea and Taiwan—neither of them a democracy at that time.
....
The democracy promotion credo is, by contrast, quite different. It goes far beyond the protection of the international status quo and advocates an openly revisionist policy, one that is designed not simply to contain other top non-democratic nations but to change their systems of government...
The Biden administration does not talk about regime change, but its words and actions contribute to a suspicion in Beijing and Moscow alike that regime change would be precisely the result of yielding to American pressure.
....
Most importantly, democracy promotion is unnecessary (at least on geopolitical grounds) because there is little evidence that China and Russia, when left to their own devices, would be eager to form a global authoritarian alliance. Neither power shows much inclination to view geopolitics or geoeconomics primarily through the prism of a presumed great democracy-autocracy divide. China seems perfectly willing to establish close economic ties with the European Union and, for that matter, even the United States. Chinese objectives appear quite traditional—gaining influence, developing friends and clients, without being particularly concerned one way or the other about their standard of liberty."

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-illusions-192078?page=0%2C1

Can the US as a nation think beyond its democratic illusion anytime soon? Illusions will cause inappropriate policy which would further its decline and loss of confidence as a superpower. Decline would in turn make US elites holding their democratic illusions tighter.

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 11:09:22 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> "Today, alongside the European Union, the United States has adopted the position that its mission is to promote democracy worldwide. Leaders in Washington regularly argue that if they fail to take up this mission, authoritarian governments will exploit American restraint and join forces—not just to undermine American power, but to destroy democracy itself, depriving the United States of its cherished freedoms.
>
> It is remarkable that this concept has become a key tenet of American foreign policy without any serious debate in Congress, in the media, or within the foreign policy community. At the heart of this approach is the presupposition that democracy is inherently superior to other forms of government, both morally and in terms of its ability to deliver prosperity and security. Democracy promotion is assumed to be a longstanding part of the U.S. foreign policy tradition rather than a radical departure from it. The Biden administration talks as though the world at large—apart from evil tyrants—will welcome its push for democracy and accept the self-evident righteousness of America and the European Union ...
>
> In the United States, the Founding Fathers similarly tolerated slavery, making its implicit incorporation in the U.S. Constitution.
> ...
> UNTIL THE end of the Cold War, democracy promotion was not a constituent element of the U.S. foreign policy tradition—the term “democracy” does not even appear in the U.S. Constitution. The United States did not wage war to spread democracy, even in its own sphere of influence in the Americas. The NATO alliance, at its very inception in 1949, was directed squarely against the Soviet geopolitical threat and willingly embraced authoritarian members such as Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar, whom many considered fascist. Other American allies of the early Cold War period included South Korea and Taiwan—neither of them a democracy at that time.
> ...
> The democracy promotion credo is, by contrast, quite different. It goes far beyond the protection of the international status quo and advocates an openly revisionist policy, one that is designed not simply to contain other top non-democratic nations but to change their systems of government...
> The Biden administration does not talk about regime change, but its words and actions contribute to a suspicion in Beijing and Moscow alike that regime change would be precisely the result of yielding to American pressure.
> ...
> Most importantly, democracy promotion is unnecessary (at least on geopolitical grounds) because there is little evidence that China and Russia, when left to their own devices, would be eager to form a global authoritarian alliance. Neither power shows much inclination to view geopolitics or geoeconomics primarily through the prism of a presumed great democracy-autocracy divide. China seems perfectly willing to establish close economic ties with the European Union and, for that matter, even the United States. Chinese objectives appear quite traditional—gaining influence, developing friends and clients, without being particularly concerned one way or the other about their standard of liberty."
>
> https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-illusions-192078?page=0%2C1
>
> Can the US as a nation think beyond its democratic illusion anytime soon? Illusions will cause inappropriate policy which would further its decline and loss of confidence as a superpower. Decline would in turn make US elites holding their democratic illusions tighter.

American democratic illusion is the illusion of a utopian future.
Kirkus review on "The Democracy Trap" by Graham Fuller

"Several years ago, Fuller and Francis Fukuyama (see above) were colleagues at RAND Corp. When the latter's notorious ``The End of History?'' was published in The National Interest, Fuller (a sometime Foreign Service officer and CIA aide who's still employed at RAND) felt obliged to draft a response to his friend's controversial 1989 article. While the text at hand is no match for Fukuyama's masterly new treatise, it earns attention on the basis of Fuller's perceptive diagnoses of what currently ails the body politic. Cautioning that the end of the cold war, though a magnificent victory for Western values, does not signal the onset of a utopian future, Fuller offers a savvy appreciation of the many challenges facing liberal democracy in general and the US in particular. In fact, he warns, uncritical extension of current limits and loosening of institutional ties that bind could stabilize rather than strengthen representative government throughout the Global Village. Absent the articles of faith attendant to the existence of a Communist threat, which could be used to explain away societal failures, the author argues, postindustrial America is confronted by challenges that may produce greater uncertainty and moral anxiety than ever did ongoing battles against Soviet-style totalitarianism. Among other urgent items on the domestic agenda, Fuller identifies ethnic unrest, racial anger, the growth of an underclass, a cultural context that encourages a widespread sense of entitlement, environmental issues with geopolitical implications, and a lack of national purpose. Fuller points out that the dilemmas facing the US are, at best, susceptible only to tradeoffs between conflicting aspirations. Moreover, he concludes that impatient idealists counting on peace or other forms of benefaction to accrue automatically from the presumptive triumph of liberal democracy are doomed to bitter disappointment. An informed and informative exegesis that spells out many of the reasons why a weary world may have to wait yet a while for a genuinely millennial age. -- Copyright ©1991, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved."

On 23/8/2021 11:09 pm, ltlee1 wrote:
> "Today, alongside the European Union, the United States has adopted the position that its mission is to promote democracy worldwide. Leaders in Washington regularly argue that if they fail to take up this mission, authoritarian governments will exploit American restraint and join forces—not just to undermine American power, but to destroy democracy itself, depriving the United States of its cherished freedoms.
>
> It is remarkable that this concept has become a key tenet of American foreign policy without any serious debate in Congress, in the media, or within the foreign policy community. At the heart of this approach is the presupposition that democracy is inherently superior to other forms of government, both morally and in terms of its ability to deliver prosperity and security. Democracy promotion is assumed to be a longstanding part of the U.S. foreign policy tradition rather than a radical departure from it. The Biden administration talks as though the world at large—apart from evil tyrants—will welcome its push for democracy and accept the self-evident righteousness of America and the European Union ...
>
> In the United States, the Founding Fathers similarly tolerated slavery, making its implicit incorporation in the U.S. Constitution.
> ...
> UNTIL THE end of the Cold War, democracy promotion was not a constituent element of the U.S. foreign policy tradition—the term “democracy” does not even appear in the U.S. Constitution. The United States did not wage war to spread democracy, even in its own sphere of influence in the Americas. The NATO alliance, at its very inception in 1949, was directed squarely against the Soviet geopolitical threat and willingly embraced authoritarian members such as Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar, whom many considered fascist. Other American allies of the early Cold War period included South Korea and Taiwan—neither of them a democracy at that time.
> ...
> The democracy promotion credo is, by contrast, quite different. It goes far beyond the protection of the international status quo and advocates an openly revisionist policy, one that is designed not simply to contain other top non-democratic nations but to change their systems of government...
> The Biden administration does not talk about regime change, but its words and actions contribute to a suspicion in Beijing and Moscow alike that regime change would be precisely the result of yielding to American pressure.
> ...
> Most importantly, democracy promotion is unnecessary (at least on geopolitical grounds) because there is little evidence that China and Russia, when left to their own devices, would be eager to form a global authoritarian alliance. Neither power shows much inclination to view geopolitics or geoeconomics primarily through the prism of a presumed great democracy-autocracy divide. China seems perfectly willing to establish close economic ties with the European Union and, for that matter, even the United States. Chinese objectives appear quite traditional—gaining influence, developing friends and clients, without being particularly concerned one way or the other about their standard of liberty."
>
> https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-illusions-192078?page=0%2C1
>
> Can the US as a nation think beyond its democratic illusion anytime soon? Illusions will cause inappropriate policy which would further its decline and loss of confidence as a superpower. Decline would in turn make US elites holding their democratic illusions tighter.
>

US has many "chefs" when come to democracy. Along the way, over years,
they have their own illusions for it.

Everywhere they go, they use their own democracy illusion to view others.

If they see others are not aligned and shaped like theirs, they would
"twist and turn, roll and knead" at them.

Seriously, they should hear and listen to others outside of US to what
own their illusion of democracy that should be shaped by their
government on their people and foreigners or others in their country.

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 1:21:45 AM UTC-4, babarato wrote:
> On 23/8/2021 11:09 pm, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "Today, alongside the European Union, the United States has adopted the position that its mission is to promote democracy worldwide. Leaders in Washington regularly argue that if they fail to take up this mission, authoritarian governments will exploit American restraint and join forces—not just to undermine American power, but to destroy democracy itself, depriving the United States of its cherished freedoms.
> >
> > It is remarkable that this concept has become a key tenet of American foreign policy without any serious debate in Congress, in the media, or within the foreign policy community. At the heart of this approach is the presupposition that democracy is inherently superior to other forms of government, both morally and in terms of its ability to deliver prosperity and security. Democracy promotion is assumed to be a longstanding part of the U.S. foreign policy tradition rather than a radical departure from it. The Biden administration talks as though the world at large—apart from evil tyrants—will welcome its push for democracy and accept the self-evident righteousness of America and the European Union ...
> >
> > In the United States, the Founding Fathers similarly tolerated slavery, making its implicit incorporation in the U.S. Constitution.
> > ...
> > UNTIL THE end of the Cold War, democracy promotion was not a constituent element of the U.S. foreign policy tradition—the term “democracy” does not even appear in the U.S. Constitution. The United States did not wage war to spread democracy, even in its own sphere of influence in the Americas. The NATO alliance, at its very inception in 1949, was directed squarely against the Soviet geopolitical threat and willingly embraced authoritarian members such as Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar, whom many considered fascist. Other American allies of the early Cold War period included South Korea and Taiwan—neither of them a democracy at that time.
> > ...
> > The democracy promotion credo is, by contrast, quite different. It goes far beyond the protection of the international status quo and advocates an openly revisionist policy, one that is designed not simply to contain other top non-democratic nations but to change their systems of government...
> > The Biden administration does not talk about regime change, but its words and actions contribute to a suspicion in Beijing and Moscow alike that regime change would be precisely the result of yielding to American pressure..
> > ...
> > Most importantly, democracy promotion is unnecessary (at least on geopolitical grounds) because there is little evidence that China and Russia, when left to their own devices, would be eager to form a global authoritarian alliance. Neither power shows much inclination to view geopolitics or geoeconomics primarily through the prism of a presumed great democracy-autocracy divide. China seems perfectly willing to establish close economic ties with the European Union and, for that matter, even the United States. Chinese objectives appear quite traditional—gaining influence, developing friends and clients, without being particularly concerned one way or the other about their standard of liberty."
> >
> > https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-illusions-192078?page=0%2C1
> >
> > Can the US as a nation think beyond its democratic illusion anytime soon? Illusions will cause inappropriate policy which would further its decline and loss of confidence as a superpower. Decline would in turn make US elites holding their democratic illusions tighter.
> >
> US has many "chefs" when come to democracy. Along the way, over years,
> they have their own illusions for it.
>
> Everywhere they go, they use their own democracy illusion to view others.
>
> If they see others are not aligned and shaped like theirs, they would
> "twist and turn, roll and knead" at them.
>
> Seriously, they should hear and listen to others outside of US to what
> own their illusion of democracy that should be shaped by their
> government on their people and foreigners or others in their country.

Of course, the US needs to hear and listen beyond the confine of US of its European allies.
At the same time, China also needs to speak on what make a democracy a democracy.
Procedure is one thing. But democracy must also outcome/evidence based. It is not about
ideology. It is about the meaning of democracy.

Having a vote is a far cry from having an effective voice. US citizens have no reason not to
trust their government if it has been a successful democracy for the past decades. The best
explanation is that their votes, however democratically cast, did not translated into democratic
outcomes.

But the US is currently too fixated on their own conception of democracy and associated
democratic illusions. Many US elites and political leaders consider the US holy and it can
do no wrong because their procedural based democracy. In contrast, China is evil because
it does have similar procedural based democracy.

That means for the US, democratic vote does not mean there will be
democratic outcome.

For China, without democratic vote does not mean there is no democratic
outcome.

Americans have been brain-washed in schools to adulthood that they have
freedoms and choices and democracy to own guns and kill and shoot.

But they now realised over the democratic years, they did not have freedoms
and choices at all. They know that one wrong moves, they can be killed and
gone forever.

Their democratic motto is based on who has gun has the right to shoot and
travel. The "have gun will travel" is the main aim of democracy in what they
want for themselves first.

For China, their democratic concept is based on providing the best
affordable infrastructures, best health care, best housing, and best job
opportunities, and

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:8bc36c11-2a2b-4c06-82be-2d4a0e5f2f92n@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 1:21:45 AM UTC-4, babarato wrote:
> On 23/8/2021 11:09 pm, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "Today, alongside the European Union, the United States has adopted the
> > position that its mission is to promote democracy worldwide. Leaders in
> > Washington regularly argue that if they fail to take up this mission,
> > authoritarian governments will exploit American restraint and join
> > forces—not just to undermine American power, but to destroy democracy
> > itself, depriving the United States of its cherished freedoms.
> >
> > It is remarkable that this concept has become a key tenet of American
> > foreign policy without any serious debate in Congress, in the media, or
> > within the foreign policy community. At the heart of this approach is
> > the presupposition that democracy is inherently superior to other forms
> > of government, both morally and in terms of its ability to deliver
> > prosperity and security. Democracy promotion is assumed to be a
> > longstanding part of the U.S. foreign policy tradition rather than a
> > radical departure from it. The Biden administration talks as though the
> > world at large—apart from evil tyrants—will welcome its push for
> > democracy and accept the self-evident righteousness of America and the
> > European Union ...
> >
> > In the United States, the Founding Fathers similarly tolerated slavery,
> > making its implicit incorporation in the U.S. Constitution.
> > ...
> > UNTIL THE end of the Cold War, democracy promotion was not a constituent
> > element of the U.S. foreign policy tradition—the term “democracy” does
> > not even appear in the U.S. Constitution. The United States did not wage
> > war to spread democracy, even in its own sphere of influence in the
> > Americas. The NATO alliance, at its very inception in 1949, was directed
> > squarely against the Soviet geopolitical threat and willingly embraced
> > authoritarian members such as Portugal under António de Oliveira
> > Salazar, whom many considered fascist. Other American allies of the
> > early Cold War period included South Korea and Taiwan—neither of them a
> > democracy at that time.
> > ...
> > The democracy promotion credo is, by contrast, quite different. It goes
> > far beyond the protection of the international status quo and advocates
> > an openly revisionist policy, one that is designed not simply to contain
> > other top non-democratic nations but to change their systems of
> > government...
> > The Biden administration does not talk about regime change, but its
> > words and actions contribute to a suspicion in Beijing and Moscow alike
> > that regime change would be precisely the result of yielding to American
> > pressure.
> > ...
> > Most importantly, democracy promotion is unnecessary (at least on
> > geopolitical grounds) because there is little evidence that China and
> > Russia, when left to their own devices, would be eager to form a global
> > authoritarian alliance. Neither power shows much inclination to view
> > geopolitics or geoeconomics primarily through the prism of a presumed
> > great democracy-autocracy divide. China seems perfectly willing to
> > establish close economic ties with the European Union and, for that
> > matter, even the United States. Chinese objectives appear quite
> > traditional—gaining influence, developing friends and clients, without
> > being particularly concerned one way or the other about their standard
> > of liberty."
> >
> > https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-illusions-192078?page=0%2C1
> >
> > Can the US as a nation think beyond its democratic illusion anytime
> > soon? Illusions will cause inappropriate policy which would further its
> > decline and loss of confidence as a superpower. Decline would in turn
> > make US elites holding their democratic illusions tighter.
> >
> US has many "chefs" when come to democracy. Along the way, over years,
> they have their own illusions for it.
>
> Everywhere they go, they use their own democracy illusion to view others.
>
> If they see others are not aligned and shaped like theirs, they would
> "twist and turn, roll and knead" at them.
>
> Seriously, they should hear and listen to others outside of US to what
> own their illusion of democracy that should be shaped by their
> government on their people and foreigners or others in their country.

Of course, the US needs to hear and listen beyond the confine of US of its
European allies.
At the same time, China also needs to speak on what make a democracy a
democracy.
Procedure is one thing. But democracy must also outcome/evidence based. It
is not about
ideology. It is about the meaning of democracy.

Having a vote is a far cry from having an effective voice. US citizens have
no reason not to
trust their government if it has been a successful democracy for the past
decades. The best
explanation is that their votes, however democratically cast, did not
translated into democratic
outcomes.

But the US is currently too fixated on their own conception of democracy and
associated
democratic illusions. Many US elites and political leaders consider the US
holy and it can
do no wrong because their procedural based democracy. In contrast, China is
evil because
it does have similar procedural based democracy.

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 11:09:22 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> "Today, alongside the European Union, the United States has adopted the position that its mission is to promote democracy worldwide. Leaders in Washington regularly argue that if they fail to take up this mission, authoritarian governments will exploit American restraint and join forces—not just to undermine American power, but to destroy democracy itself, depriving the United States of its cherished freedoms.
>
> It is remarkable that this concept has become a key tenet of American foreign policy without any serious debate in Congress, in the media, or within the foreign policy community. At the heart of this approach is the presupposition that democracy is inherently superior to other forms of government, both morally and in terms of its ability to deliver prosperity and security. Democracy promotion is assumed to be a longstanding part of the U.S. foreign policy tradition rather than a radical departure from it. The Biden administration talks as though the world at large—apart from evil tyrants—will welcome its push for democracy and accept the self-evident righteousness of America and the European Union ...
>
> In the United States, the Founding Fathers similarly tolerated slavery, making its implicit incorporation in the U.S. Constitution.
> ...
> UNTIL THE end of the Cold War, democracy promotion was not a constituent element of the U.S. foreign policy tradition—the term “democracy” does not even appear in the U.S. Constitution. The United States did not wage war to spread democracy, even in its own sphere of influence in the Americas. The NATO alliance, at its very inception in 1949, was directed squarely against the Soviet geopolitical threat and willingly embraced authoritarian members such as Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar, whom many considered fascist. Other American allies of the early Cold War period included South Korea and Taiwan—neither of them a democracy at that time.
> ...
> The democracy promotion credo is, by contrast, quite different. It goes far beyond the protection of the international status quo and advocates an openly revisionist policy, one that is designed not simply to contain other top non-democratic nations but to change their systems of government...
> The Biden administration does not talk about regime change, but its words and actions contribute to a suspicion in Beijing and Moscow alike that regime change would be precisely the result of yielding to American pressure.

The term "revisionist power" has at least two meanings.
1) It describes a power in the process of changing the world order.
2) It describes a power in the process of changing the relative positions of world powers without changing the world order.

China's rapid economic rise had and would continue to change the relative positions of world power. So is India. However, China is not interested in changing to world order in general. In contrast, the US sensing its decline, is trying hard to change the world order. It "advocates an openly revisionist policy" by inserting democratic promotion credo in its foreign policy.

> ...
> Most importantly, democracy promotion is unnecessary (at least on geopolitical grounds) because there is little evidence that China and Russia, when left to their own devices, would be eager to form a global authoritarian alliance. Neither power shows much inclination to view geopolitics or geoeconomics primarily through the prism of a presumed great democracy-autocracy divide. China seems perfectly willing to establish close economic ties with the European Union and, for that matter, even the United States. Chinese objectives appear quite traditional—gaining influence, developing friends and clients, without being particularly concerned one way or the other about their standard of liberty."
>
> https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-illusions-192078?page=0%2C1
>
> Can the US as a nation think beyond its democratic illusion anytime soon? Illusions will cause inappropriate policy which would further its decline and loss of confidence as a superpower. Decline would in turn make US elites holding their democratic illusions tighter.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 11:33:06 AM UTC-4, stoney wrote:
> That means for the US, democratic vote does not mean there will be
> democratic outcome.
>
> For China, without democratic vote does not mean there is no democratic
> outcome.
>
> Americans have been brain-washed in schools to adulthood that they have
> freedoms and choices and democracy to own guns and kill and shoot.
>
> But they now realised over the democratic years, they did not have freedoms
> and choices at all. They know that one wrong moves, they can be killed and
> gone forever.
>
> Their democratic motto is based on who has gun has the right to shoot and
> travel. The "have gun will travel" is the main aim of democracy in what they
> want for themselves first.

The US is a failure as a democracy. But at present it has no choice but to pretend it
is a kind of leader of democracy. But China is beginning to respond as a democracy.
The US is likely to lose the battle of democracy.

>
> For China, their democratic concept is based on providing the best
> affordable infrastructures, best health care, best housing, and best job
> opportunities, and
>
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:8bc36c11-2a2b-4c06...@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 1:21:45 AM UTC-4, babarato wrote:
> > On 23/8/2021 11:09 pm, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > "Today, alongside the European Union, the United States has adopted the
> > > position that its mission is to promote democracy worldwide. Leaders in
> > > Washington regularly argue that if they fail to take up this mission,
> > > authoritarian governments will exploit American restraint and join
> > > forces—not just to undermine American power, but to destroy democracy
> > > itself, depriving the United States of its cherished freedoms.
> > >
> > > It is remarkable that this concept has become a key tenet of American
> > > foreign policy without any serious debate in Congress, in the media, or
> > > within the foreign policy community. At the heart of this approach is
> > > the presupposition that democracy is inherently superior to other forms
> > > of government, both morally and in terms of its ability to deliver
> > > prosperity and security. Democracy promotion is assumed to be a
> > > longstanding part of the U.S. foreign policy tradition rather than a
> > > radical departure from it. The Biden administration talks as though the
> > > world at large—apart from evil tyrants—will welcome its push for
> > > democracy and accept the self-evident righteousness of America and the
> > > European Union ...
> > >
> > > In the United States, the Founding Fathers similarly tolerated slavery,
> > > making its implicit incorporation in the U.S. Constitution.
> > > ...
> > > UNTIL THE end of the Cold War, democracy promotion was not a constituent
> > > element of the U.S. foreign policy tradition—the term “democracy” does
> > > not even appear in the U.S. Constitution. The United States did not wage
> > > war to spread democracy, even in its own sphere of influence in the
> > > Americas. The NATO alliance, at its very inception in 1949, was directed
> > > squarely against the Soviet geopolitical threat and willingly embraced
> > > authoritarian members such as Portugal under António de Oliveira
> > > Salazar, whom many considered fascist. Other American allies of the
> > > early Cold War period included South Korea and Taiwan—neither of them a
> > > democracy at that time.
> > > ...
> > > The democracy promotion credo is, by contrast, quite different. It goes
> > > far beyond the protection of the international status quo and advocates
> > > an openly revisionist policy, one that is designed not simply to contain
> > > other top non-democratic nations but to change their systems of
> > > government...
> > > The Biden administration does not talk about regime change, but its
> > > words and actions contribute to a suspicion in Beijing and Moscow alike
> > > that regime change would be precisely the result of yielding to American
> > > pressure.
> > > ...
> > > Most importantly, democracy promotion is unnecessary (at least on
> > > geopolitical grounds) because there is little evidence that China and
> > > Russia, when left to their own devices, would be eager to form a global
> > > authoritarian alliance. Neither power shows much inclination to view
> > > geopolitics or geoeconomics primarily through the prism of a presumed
> > > great democracy-autocracy divide. China seems perfectly willing to
> > > establish close economic ties with the European Union and, for that
> > > matter, even the United States. Chinese objectives appear quite
> > > traditional—gaining influence, developing friends and clients, without
> > > being particularly concerned one way or the other about their standard
> > > of liberty."
> > >
> > > https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-illusions-192078?page=0%2C1
> > >
> > > Can the US as a nation think beyond its democratic illusion anytime
> > > soon? Illusions will cause inappropriate policy which would further its
> > > decline and loss of confidence as a superpower. Decline would in turn
> > > make US elites holding their democratic illusions tighter.
> > >
> > US has many "chefs" when come to democracy. Along the way, over years,
> > they have their own illusions for it.
> >
> > Everywhere they go, they use their own democracy illusion to view others.
> >
> > If they see others are not aligned and shaped like theirs, they would
> > "twist and turn, roll and knead" at them.
> >
> > Seriously, they should hear and listen to others outside of US to what
> > own their illusion of democracy that should be shaped by their
> > government on their people and foreigners or others in their country.
>
> Of course, the US needs to hear and listen beyond the confine of US of its
> European allies.
> At the same time, China also needs to speak on what make a democracy a
> democracy.
> Procedure is one thing. But democracy must also outcome/evidence based. It
> is not about
> ideology. It is about the meaning of democracy.
>
> Having a vote is a far cry from having an effective voice. US citizens have
> no reason not to
> trust their government if it has been a successful democracy for the past
> decades. The best
> explanation is that their votes, however democratically cast, did not
> translated into democratic
> outcomes.
>
> But the US is currently too fixated on their own conception of democracy and
> associated
> democratic illusions. Many US elites and political leaders consider the US
> holy and it can
> do no wrong because their procedural based democracy. In contrast, China is
> evil because
> it does have similar procedural based democracy.

There are many kinds of democracy out there in the world and US can no
longer say their democracy is the best.

US has to prove to the world on why their democracy is good and is best for
the world to emulate and follow it.

To come to a compromise, lines and gaps on democracy, countries can learn
and adopt the western democratic system into their country.

Western democratic countries can put forward their democratic system to
these countries to see how it can merge into the system for their people.

A lot of can be changed and adopted and learned if there are discussions by
academics to implementers be international forums for it.

In this way, a the gaps and lines between democracies can be narrowed down
and bad ones be discarded and new ones be introduced.
..
By this way, a universal standard on democratic values and systems can be
derived and be emerged for implementation by countries agreeing to it.

Hence, the US or Western democratic systems will not be the only one to be
used or be chosen anymore, but a universal mutually acceptable democratic
value system be emerged for it.

Form time to time, say every 3 years interval, a forum is conducted to
review each other democratic values and systems and bring ups new ideas and
changes to meet the changing needs for it.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:47d01b0b-77f5-47fc-9a1f-d2aade52544dn@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 11:33:06 AM UTC-4, stoney wrote:
> That means for the US, democratic vote does not mean there will be
> democratic outcome.
>
> For China, without democratic vote does not mean there is no democratic
> outcome.
>
> Americans have been brain-washed in schools to adulthood that they have
> freedoms and choices and democracy to own guns and kill and shoot.
>
> But they now realised over the democratic years, they did not have
> freedoms
> and choices at all. They know that one wrong moves, they can be killed and
> gone forever.
>
> Their democratic motto is based on who has gun has the right to shoot and
> travel. The "have gun will travel" is the main aim of democracy in what
> they
> want for themselves first.

The US is a failure as a democracy. But at present it has no choice but to
pretend it
is a kind of leader of democracy. But China is beginning to respond as a
democracy.
The US is likely to lose the battle of democracy.

>
> For China, their democratic concept is based on providing the best
> affordable infrastructures, best health care, best housing, and best job
> opportunities, and
>
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:8bc36c11-2a2b-4c06...@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 1:21:45 AM UTC-4, babarato wrote:
> > On 23/8/2021 11:09 pm, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > "Today, alongside the European Union, the United States has adopted
> > > the
> > > position that its mission is to promote democracy worldwide. Leaders
> > > in
> > > Washington regularly argue that if they fail to take up this mission,
> > > authoritarian governments will exploit American restraint and join
> > > forces—not just to undermine American power, but to destroy democracy
> > > itself, depriving the United States of its cherished freedoms.
> > >
> > > It is remarkable that this concept has become a key tenet of American
> > > foreign policy without any serious debate in Congress, in the media,
> > > or
> > > within the foreign policy community. At the heart of this approach is
> > > the presupposition that democracy is inherently superior to other
> > > forms
> > > of government, both morally and in terms of its ability to deliver
> > > prosperity and security. Democracy promotion is assumed to be a
> > > longstanding part of the U.S. foreign policy tradition rather than a
> > > radical departure from it. The Biden administration talks as though
> > > the
> > > world at large—apart from evil tyrants—will welcome its push for
> > > democracy and accept the self-evident righteousness of America and the
> > > European Union ...
> > >
> > > In the United States, the Founding Fathers similarly tolerated
> > > slavery,
> > > making its implicit incorporation in the U.S. Constitution.
> > > ...
> > > UNTIL THE end of the Cold War, democracy promotion was not a
> > > constituent
> > > element of the U.S. foreign policy tradition—the term “democracy” does
> > > not even appear in the U.S. Constitution. The United States did not
> > > wage
> > > war to spread democracy, even in its own sphere of influence in the
> > > Americas. The NATO alliance, at its very inception in 1949, was
> > > directed
> > > squarely against the Soviet geopolitical threat and willingly embraced
> > > authoritarian members such as Portugal under António de Oliveira
> > > Salazar, whom many considered fascist. Other American allies of the
> > > early Cold War period included South Korea and Taiwan—neither of them
> > > a
> > > democracy at that time.
> > > ...
> > > The democracy promotion credo is, by contrast, quite different. It
> > > goes
> > > far beyond the protection of the international status quo and
> > > advocates
> > > an openly revisionist policy, one that is designed not simply to
> > > contain
> > > other top non-democratic nations but to change their systems of
> > > government...
> > > The Biden administration does not talk about regime change, but its
> > > words and actions contribute to a suspicion in Beijing and Moscow
> > > alike
> > > that regime change would be precisely the result of yielding to
> > > American
> > > pressure.
> > > ...
> > > Most importantly, democracy promotion is unnecessary (at least on
> > > geopolitical grounds) because there is little evidence that China and
> > > Russia, when left to their own devices, would be eager to form a
> > > global
> > > authoritarian alliance. Neither power shows much inclination to view
> > > geopolitics or geoeconomics primarily through the prism of a presumed
> > > great democracy-autocracy divide. China seems perfectly willing to
> > > establish close economic ties with the European Union and, for that
> > > matter, even the United States. Chinese objectives appear quite
> > > traditional—gaining influence, developing friends and clients, without
> > > being particularly concerned one way or the other about their standard
> > > of liberty."
> > >
> > > https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-illusions-192078?page=0%2C1
> > >
> > > Can the US as a nation think beyond its democratic illusion anytime
> > > soon? Illusions will cause inappropriate policy which would further
> > > its
> > > decline and loss of confidence as a superpower. Decline would in turn
> > > make US elites holding their democratic illusions tighter.
> > >
> > US has many "chefs" when come to democracy. Along the way, over years,
> > they have their own illusions for it.
> >
> > Everywhere they go, they use their own democracy illusion to view
> > others.
> >
> > If they see others are not aligned and shaped like theirs, they would
> > "twist and turn, roll and knead" at them.
> >
> > Seriously, they should hear and listen to others outside of US to what
> > own their illusion of democracy that should be shaped by their
> > government on their people and foreigners or others in their country.
>
> Of course, the US needs to hear and listen beyond the confine of US of its
> European allies.
> At the same time, China also needs to speak on what make a democracy a
> democracy.
> Procedure is one thing. But democracy must also outcome/evidence based. It
> is not about
> ideology. It is about the meaning of democracy.
>
> Having a vote is a far cry from having an effective voice. US citizens
> have
> no reason not to
> trust their government if it has been a successful democracy for the past
> decades. The best
> explanation is that their votes, however democratically cast, did not
> translated into democratic
> outcomes.
>
> But the US is currently too fixated on their own conception of democracy
> and
> associated
> democratic illusions. Many US elites and political leaders consider the US
> holy and it can
> do no wrong because their procedural based democracy. In contrast, China
> is
> evil because
> it does have similar procedural based democracy.

That means US wants to build new foundations and not build on build
foundation.

That means opposing countries have to reconstitute old foundation into
adopting new foundation of democracy in accordance to the US terminology on
idealism and democracy that will be initiated by whoever appointed
representative by the US to make such demands and actions on countries to
revise theirs to be better selves like the US is having for their Americans.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:fcbd5813-ea68-4add-b483-948f4d546162n@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 11:09:22 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> "Today, alongside the European Union, the United States has adopted the
> position that its mission is to promote democracy worldwide. Leaders in
> Washington regularly argue that if they fail to take up this mission,
> authoritarian governments will exploit American restraint and join
> forces—not just to undermine American power, but to destroy democracy
> itself, depriving the United States of its cherished freedoms.
>
> It is remarkable that this concept has become a key tenet of American
> foreign policy without any serious debate in Congress, in the media, or
> within the foreign policy community. At the heart of this approach is the
> presupposition that democracy is inherently superior to other forms of
> government, both morally and in terms of its ability to deliver prosperity
> and security. Democracy promotion is assumed to be a longstanding part of
> the U.S. foreign policy tradition rather than a radical departure from it.
> The Biden administration talks as though the world at large—apart from
> evil tyrants—will welcome its push for democracy and accept the
> self-evident righteousness of America and the European Union ...
>
> In the United States, the Founding Fathers similarly tolerated slavery,
> making its implicit incorporation in the U.S. Constitution.
> ...
> UNTIL THE end of the Cold War, democracy promotion was not a constituent
> element of the U.S. foreign policy tradition—the term “democracy” does not
> even appear in the U.S. Constitution. The United States did not wage war
> to spread democracy, even in its own sphere of influence in the Americas.
> The NATO alliance, at its very inception in 1949, was directed squarely
> against the Soviet geopolitical threat and willingly embraced
> authoritarian members such as Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar,
> whom many considered fascist. Other American allies of the early Cold War
> period included South Korea and Taiwan—neither of them a democracy at that
> time.
> ...
> The democracy promotion credo is, by contrast, quite different. It goes
> far beyond the protection of the international status quo and advocates an
> openly revisionist policy, one that is designed not simply to contain
> other top non-democratic nations but to change their systems of
> government...
> The Biden administration does not talk about regime change, but its words
> and actions contribute to a suspicion in Beijing and Moscow alike that
> regime change would be precisely the result of yielding to American
> pressure.

The term "revisionist power" has at least two meanings.
1) It describes a power in the process of changing the world order.
2) It describes a power in the process of changing the relative positions of
world powers without changing the world order.

China's rapid economic rise had and would continue to change the relative
positions of world power. So is India. However, China is not interested in
changing to world order in general. In contrast, the US sensing its decline,
is trying hard to change the world order. It "advocates an openly
revisionist policy" by inserting democratic promotion credo in its foreign
policy.

> ...
> Most importantly, democracy promotion is unnecessary (at least on
> geopolitical grounds) because there is little evidence that China and
> Russia, when left to their own devices, would be eager to form a global
> authoritarian alliance. Neither power shows much inclination to view
> geopolitics or geoeconomics primarily through the prism of a presumed
> great democracy-autocracy divide. China seems perfectly willing to
> establish close economic ties with the European Union and, for that
> matter, even the United States. Chinese objectives appear quite
> traditional—gaining influence, developing friends and clients, without
> being particularly concerned one way or the other about their standard of
> liberty."
>
> https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-illusions-192078?page=0%2C1
>
> Can the US as a nation think beyond its democratic illusion anytime soon?
> Illusions will cause inappropriate policy which would further its decline
> and loss of confidence as a superpower. Decline would in turn make US
> elites holding their democratic illusions tighter.

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3:45:49 AM UTC-4, Johanne Strause wrote:
> There are many kinds of democracy out there in the world and US can no
> longer say their democracy is the best.

Not according to the US.
For some reason, it seems to outsource thinking of democracy to a small selected group of people of the Freedom House.
>
> US has to prove to the world on why their democracy is good and is best for
> the world to emulate and follow it.

It has the power to define. So it does not have to be a real democracy, let alone the best democracy.
>
> To come to a compromise, lines and gaps on democracy, countries can learn
> and adopt the western democratic system into their country.
>
> Western democratic countries can put forward their democratic system to
> these countries to see how it can merge into the system for their people.

Afghanistan is the best example. Externally imposed democracy does not work..
>
> A lot of can be changed and adopted and learned if there are discussions by
> academics to implementers be international forums for it.
>
> In this way, a the gaps and lines between democracies can be narrowed down
> and bad ones be discarded and new ones be introduced.
> .
> By this way, a universal standard on democratic values and systems can be
> derived and be emerged for implementation by countries agreeing to it.

Agree. Universal values must be universally derived and defined.
>
> Hence, the US or Western democratic systems will not be the only one to be
> used or be chosen anymore, but a universal mutually acceptable democratic
> value system be emerged for it.
>
> Form time to time, say every 3 years interval, a forum is conducted to
> review each other democratic values and systems and bring ups new ideas and
> changes to meet the changing needs for it.

Excellent example. Democracy defined by a more diverse group would be much better
than dark room operation of small groups such as the Freedom House in the US.
>
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:47d01b0b-77f5-47fc...@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 11:33:06 AM UTC-4, stoney wrote:
> > That means for the US, democratic vote does not mean there will be
> > democratic outcome.
> >
> > For China, without democratic vote does not mean there is no democratic
> > outcome.
> >
> > Americans have been brain-washed in schools to adulthood that they have
> > freedoms and choices and democracy to own guns and kill and shoot.
> >
> > But they now realised over the democratic years, they did not have
> > freedoms
> > and choices at all. They know that one wrong moves, they can be killed and
> > gone forever.
> >
> > Their democratic motto is based on who has gun has the right to shoot and
> > travel. The "have gun will travel" is the main aim of democracy in what
> > they
> > want for themselves first.
>
> The US is a failure as a democracy. But at present it has no choice but to
> pretend it
> is a kind of leader of democracy. But China is beginning to respond as a
> democracy.
> The US is likely to lose the battle of democracy.
>
> >
> > For China, their democratic concept is based on providing the best
> > affordable infrastructures, best health care, best housing, and best job
> > opportunities, and
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "ltlee1" wrote in message
> > news:8bc36c11-2a2b-4c06...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 1:21:45 AM UTC-4, babarato wrote:
> > > On 23/8/2021 11:09 pm, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > "Today, alongside the European Union, the United States has adopted
> > > > the
> > > > position that its mission is to promote democracy worldwide. Leaders
> > > > in
> > > > Washington regularly argue that if they fail to take up this mission,
> > > > authoritarian governments will exploit American restraint and join
> > > > forces—not just to undermine American power, but to destroy democracy
> > > > itself, depriving the United States of its cherished freedoms.
> > > >
> > > > It is remarkable that this concept has become a key tenet of American
> > > > foreign policy without any serious debate in Congress, in the media,
> > > > or
> > > > within the foreign policy community. At the heart of this approach is
> > > > the presupposition that democracy is inherently superior to other
> > > > forms
> > > > of government, both morally and in terms of its ability to deliver
> > > > prosperity and security. Democracy promotion is assumed to be a
> > > > longstanding part of the U.S. foreign policy tradition rather than a
> > > > radical departure from it. The Biden administration talks as though
> > > > the
> > > > world at large—apart from evil tyrants—will welcome its push for
> > > > democracy and accept the self-evident righteousness of America and the
> > > > European Union ...
> > > >
> > > > In the United States, the Founding Fathers similarly tolerated
> > > > slavery,
> > > > making its implicit incorporation in the U.S. Constitution.
> > > > ...
> > > > UNTIL THE end of the Cold War, democracy promotion was not a
> > > > constituent
> > > > element of the U.S. foreign policy tradition—the term “democracy” does
> > > > not even appear in the U.S. Constitution. The United States did not
> > > > wage
> > > > war to spread democracy, even in its own sphere of influence in the
> > > > Americas. The NATO alliance, at its very inception in 1949, was
> > > > directed
> > > > squarely against the Soviet geopolitical threat and willingly embraced
> > > > authoritarian members such as Portugal under António de Oliveira
> > > > Salazar, whom many considered fascist. Other American allies of the
> > > > early Cold War period included South Korea and Taiwan—neither of them
> > > > a
> > > > democracy at that time.
> > > > ...
> > > > The democracy promotion credo is, by contrast, quite different. It
> > > > goes
> > > > far beyond the protection of the international status quo and
> > > > advocates
> > > > an openly revisionist policy, one that is designed not simply to
> > > > contain
> > > > other top non-democratic nations but to change their systems of
> > > > government...
> > > > The Biden administration does not talk about regime change, but its
> > > > words and actions contribute to a suspicion in Beijing and Moscow
> > > > alike
> > > > that regime change would be precisely the result of yielding to
> > > > American
> > > > pressure.
> > > > ...
> > > > Most importantly, democracy promotion is unnecessary (at least on
> > > > geopolitical grounds) because there is little evidence that China and
> > > > Russia, when left to their own devices, would be eager to form a
> > > > global
> > > > authoritarian alliance. Neither power shows much inclination to view
> > > > geopolitics or geoeconomics primarily through the prism of a presumed
> > > > great democracy-autocracy divide. China seems perfectly willing to
> > > > establish close economic ties with the European Union and, for that
> > > > matter, even the United States. Chinese objectives appear quite
> > > > traditional—gaining influence, developing friends and clients, without
> > > > being particularly concerned one way or the other about their standard
> > > > of liberty."
> > > >
> > > > https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-illusions-192078?page=0%2C1
> > > >
> > > > Can the US as a nation think beyond its democratic illusion anytime
> > > > soon? Illusions will cause inappropriate policy which would further
> > > > its
> > > > decline and loss of confidence as a superpower. Decline would in turn
> > > > make US elites holding their democratic illusions tighter.
> > > >
> > > US has many "chefs" when come to democracy. Along the way, over years,
> > > they have their own illusions for it.
> > >
> > > Everywhere they go, they use their own democracy illusion to view
> > > others.
> > >
> > > If they see others are not aligned and shaped like theirs, they would
> > > "twist and turn, roll and knead" at them.
> > >
> > > Seriously, they should hear and listen to others outside of US to what
> > > own their illusion of democracy that should be shaped by their
> > > government on their people and foreigners or others in their country.
> >
> > Of course, the US needs to hear and listen beyond the confine of US of its
> > European allies.
> > At the same time, China also needs to speak on what make a democracy a
> > democracy.
> > Procedure is one thing. But democracy must also outcome/evidence based. It
> > is not about
> > ideology. It is about the meaning of democracy.
> >
> > Having a vote is a far cry from having an effective voice. US citizens
> > have
> > no reason not to
> > trust their government if it has been a successful democracy for the past
> > decades. The best
> > explanation is that their votes, however democratically cast, did not
> > translated into democratic
> > outcomes.
> >
> > But the US is currently too fixated on their own conception of democracy
> > and
> > associated
> > democratic illusions. Many US elites and political leaders consider the US
> > holy and it can
> > do no wrong because their procedural based democracy. In contrast, China
> > is
> > evil because
> > it does have similar procedural based democracy.

"Johanne Strause" wrote in message news:sh75ba$5mh$1@dont-email.me...
>
> There are many kinds of democracy out there in the world and US can no
> longer say their democracy is the best.

Anywhere else, a president-elect would
decide to become president-for-life...

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:01:56 PM UTC-4, Byker wrote:
> "Johanne Strause" wrote in message news:sh75ba$5mh$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> > There are many kinds of democracy out there in the world and US can no
> > longer say their democracy is the best.
> Anywhere else, a president-elect would
> decide to become president-for-life...

IMO, two 5 year terms is too short and too rigid. Will Xi become a president-for-life?
I don't believe that. At present, one could speculate but calling XI president-for-life is not
based on fact.

More important, longer term presidency and democracy are not mutually exclusive. For example,
FDR would have served 16 years if he did not die during the fourth term of his presidency.
Currently, Angela Merkel is also serving her fourth term as the Chancellor of Germany.

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 5:54:13 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:01:56 PM UTC-4, Byker wrote:
> > "Johanne Strause" wrote in message news:sh75ba$5mh$1...@dont-email.me...
> > >
> > > There are many kinds of democracy out there in the world and US can no
> > > longer say their democracy is the best.
> > Anywhere else, a president-elect would
> > decide to become president-for-life...
> IMO, two 5 year terms is too short and too rigid. Will Xi become a president-for-life?
> I don't believe that. At present, one could speculate but calling XI president-for-life is not
> based on fact.

Seems like you do not understand human nature. Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled opponent.

> More important, longer term presidency and democracy are not mutually exclusive. For example,
> FDR would have served 16 years if he did not die during the fourth term of his presidency.
> Currently, Angela Merkel is also serving her fourth term as the Chancellor of Germany.

Which are all consistent with the rules at the time. Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.

"bmoore" wrote in message
news:878da7af-8672-4f99-8da7-602a248f9fbbn@googlegroups.com...

> Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled
> opponent.
>
> Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.

There's an old poem referencing an emperor who burned books to suppress
intellectuals, only to be overthrown by illiterates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykOKnO9R368

This poem can be translated as a criticism of the emperor of the Qin
dynasty. The CCP, however, sees this poem as this: "Xi Jinping, you're going
to be overthrown by the people if you keep stifling us."

THAT's how paranoid the Chinese government has become...

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:43:51 AM UTC-7, Byker wrote:
> "bmoore" wrote in message
> news:878da7af-8672-4f99...@googlegroups.com...
> > Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled
> > opponent.
> >
> > Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.
> There's an old poem referencing an emperor who burned books to suppress
> intellectuals, only to be overthrown by illiterates:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykOKnO9R368
>
> This poem can be translated as a criticism of the emperor of the Qin
> dynasty. The CCP, however, sees this poem as this: "Xi Jinping, you're going
> to be overthrown by the people if you keep stifling us."
>
> THAT's how paranoid the Chinese government has become...

Wait, so the Chinese government has banned this poem?

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 5:54:13 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:01:56 PM UTC-4, Byker wrote:
> > > "Johanne Strause" wrote in message news:sh75ba$5mh$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > >
> > > > There are many kinds of democracy out there in the world and US can no
> > > > longer say their democracy is the best.
> > > Anywhere else, a president-elect would
> > > decide to become president-for-life...
> > IMO, two 5 year terms is too short and too rigid. Will Xi become a president-for-life?
> > I don't believe that. At present, one could speculate but calling XI president-for-life is not
> > based on fact.
> Seems like you do not understand human nature. Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled opponent.

Have your god bestow to you a better understanding of human nature?
Or do you think you are better human and therefore you have better understanding of human nature?

> > More important, longer term presidency and democracy are not mutually exclusive. For example,
> > FDR would have served 16 years if he did not die during the fourth term of his presidency.
> > Currently, Angela Merkel is also serving her fourth term as the Chancellor of Germany.
> Which are all consistent with the rules at the time. Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.

What event is not the results of time and place?
If you have evidence that Xi changing the rule is not acceptable to the people, please inform.

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:27:30 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 5:54:13 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:01:56 PM UTC-4, Byker wrote:
> > > > "Johanne Strause" wrote in message news:sh75ba$5mh$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many kinds of democracy out there in the world and US can no
> > > > > longer say their democracy is the best.
> > > > Anywhere else, a president-elect would
> > > > decide to become president-for-life...
> > > IMO, two 5 year terms is too short and too rigid. Will Xi become a president-for-life?
> > > I don't believe that. At present, one could speculate but calling XI president-for-life is not
> > > based on fact.
> > Seems like you do not understand human nature. Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled opponent.
> Have your god bestow to you a better understanding of human nature?
> Or do you think you are better human and therefore you have better understanding of human nature?

I am not hindered by blind allegiance. Otherwise, I am simply another thinking individual.

> > > More important, longer term presidency and democracy are not mutually exclusive. For example,
> > > FDR would have served 16 years if he did not die during the fourth term of his presidency.
> > > Currently, Angela Merkel is also serving her fourth term as the Chancellor of Germany.
> > Which are all consistent with the rules at the time. Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.
> What event is not the results of time and place?
> If you have evidence that Xi changing the rule is not acceptable to the people, please inform.

"The people" can't even write a poem that criticizes Mr. Xi without backlash. How would we know what they really find acceptable?

"bmoore" wrote in message
news:9b75cbcf-e436-4e12-977e-59c43578d435n@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:43:51 AM UTC-7, Byker wrote:
>> "bmoore" wrote in message
>> news:878da7af-8672-4f99...@googlegroups.com...
>> > Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled
>> > opponent.
>> >
>> > Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.
>> There's an old poem referencing an emperor who burned books to suppress
>> intellectuals, only to be overthrown by illiterates:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykOKnO9R368
>>
>> This poem can be translated as a criticism of the emperor of the Qin
>> dynasty. The CCP, however, sees this poem as this: "Xi Jinping, you're
>> going to be overthrown by the people if you keep stifling us."
>>
>> THAT's how paranoid the Chinese government has become...
>
> Wait, so the Chinese government has banned this poem?

They've banned just about everything else that
the West holds dear: https://tinyurl.com/2pj46tbu

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 11:40:31 AM UTC-7, Byker wrote:
> "bmoore" wrote in message
> news:9b75cbcf-e436-4e12...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:43:51 AM UTC-7, Byker wrote:
> >> "bmoore" wrote in message
> >> news:878da7af-8672-4f99...@googlegroups.com...
> >> > Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled
> >> > opponent.
> >> >
> >> > Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.
> >> There's an old poem referencing an emperor who burned books to suppress
> >> intellectuals, only to be overthrown by illiterates:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykOKnO9R368
> >>
> >> This poem can be translated as a criticism of the emperor of the Qin
> >> dynasty. The CCP, however, sees this poem as this: "Xi Jinping, you're
> >> going to be overthrown by the people if you keep stifling us."
> >>
> >> THAT's how paranoid the Chinese government has become...
> >
> > Wait, so the Chinese government has banned this poem?
> They've banned just about everything else that
> the West holds dear: https://tinyurl.com/2pj46tbu

Wow, Winnie the Pooh? That bastard! LOL.

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 11:40:31 AM UTC-7, Byker wrote:
> "bmoore" wrote in message
> news:9b75cbcf-e436-4e12...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:43:51 AM UTC-7, Byker wrote:
> >> "bmoore" wrote in message
> >> news:878da7af-8672-4f99...@googlegroups.com...
> >> > Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled
> >> > opponent.
> >> >
> >> > Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.
> >> There's an old poem referencing an emperor who burned books to suppress
> >> intellectuals, only to be overthrown by illiterates:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykOKnO9R368
> >>
> >> This poem can be translated as a criticism of the emperor of the Qin
> >> dynasty. The CCP, however, sees this poem as this: "Xi Jinping, you're
> >> going to be overthrown by the people if you keep stifling us."
> >>
> >> THAT's how paranoid the Chinese government has become...
> >
> > Wait, so the Chinese government has banned this poem?
> They've banned just about everything else that
> the West holds dear: https://tinyurl.com/2pj46tbu

They've banned just about everything else that the West holds dear
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent!!! Excellent!!!!
especially ban slavery, hanging, torturing, nation-building, war-mongering...

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 2:17:06 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:27:30 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 5:54:13 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:01:56 PM UTC-4, Byker wrote:
> > > > > "Johanne Strause" wrote in message news:sh75ba$5mh$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are many kinds of democracy out there in the world and US can no
> > > > > > longer say their democracy is the best.
> > > > > Anywhere else, a president-elect would
> > > > > decide to become president-for-life...
> > > > IMO, two 5 year terms is too short and too rigid. Will Xi become a president-for-life?
> > > > I don't believe that. At present, one could speculate but calling XI president-for-life is not
> > > > based on fact.
> > > Seems like you do not understand human nature. Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled opponent.
> > Have your god bestow to you a better understanding of human nature?
> > Or do you think you are better human and therefore you have better understanding of human nature?
> I am not hindered by blind allegiance. Otherwise, I am simply another thinking individual.
> > > > More important, longer term presidency and democracy are not mutually exclusive. For example,
> > > > FDR would have served 16 years if he did not die during the fourth term of his presidency.
> > > > Currently, Angela Merkel is also serving her fourth term as the Chancellor of Germany.
> > > Which are all consistent with the rules at the time. Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.
> > What event is not the results of time and place?
> > If you have evidence that Xi changing the rule is not acceptable to the people, please inform.
> "The people" can't even write a poem that criticizes Mr. Xi without backlash. How would we know what they really find acceptable?

The Tang poem is widely accessible. Feel free to search Baidu.com.
I used the first 14 Chinese characters as the search term and the following is the return. It is not in anyway blocked.
https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=8&rsv_bp=1&rsv_idx=1&ch=&tn=baidu&bar=&wd=%E7%AB%B9%E5%B8%9B%E7%83%9F%E9%94%80%E5%B8%9D%E4%B8%9A%E8%99%9A%EF%BC%8C%E5%85%B3%E6%B2%B3%E7%A9%BA%E9%94%81%E7%A5%96%E9%BE%99%E5%B1%85&rn=&fenlei=256&oq=&rsv_pq=c12ae7c900003ecf&rsv_t=0b9fwtxKkdtlN21ATR6zakGbD%2Bd5kiv7CzDbrkk2wZVIYzkWMULN6sfYTmE&rqlang=cn

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 4:40:00 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 2:17:06 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:27:30 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 5:54:13 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:01:56 PM UTC-4, Byker wrote:
> > > > > > "Johanne Strause" wrote in message news:sh75ba$5mh$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are many kinds of democracy out there in the world and US can no
> > > > > > > longer say their democracy is the best.
> > > > > > Anywhere else, a president-elect would
> > > > > > decide to become president-for-life...
> > > > > IMO, two 5 year terms is too short and too rigid. Will Xi become a president-for-life?
> > > > > I don't believe that. At present, one could speculate but calling XI president-for-life is not
> > > > > based on fact.
> > > > Seems like you do not understand human nature. Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled opponent.
> > > Have your god bestow to you a better understanding of human nature?
> > > Or do you think you are better human and therefore you have better understanding of human nature?
> > I am not hindered by blind allegiance. Otherwise, I am simply another thinking individual.
> > > > > More important, longer term presidency and democracy are not mutually exclusive. For example,
> > > > > FDR would have served 16 years if he did not die during the fourth term of his presidency.
> > > > > Currently, Angela Merkel is also serving her fourth term as the Chancellor of Germany.
> > > > Which are all consistent with the rules at the time. Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.
> > > What event is not the results of time and place?
> > > If you have evidence that Xi changing the rule is not acceptable to the people, please inform.
> > "The people" can't even write a poem that criticizes Mr. Xi without backlash. How would we know what they really find acceptable?
> The Tang poem is widely accessible. Feel free to search Baidu.com.
> I used the first 14 Chinese characters as the search term and the following is the return. It is not in anyway blocked.
> https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=8&rsv_bp=1&rsv_idx=1&ch=&tn=baidu&bar=&wd=%E7%AB%B9%E5%B8%9B%E7%83%9F%E9%94%80%E5%B8%9D%E4%B8%9A%E8%99%9A%EF%BC%8C%E5%85%B3%E6%B2%B3%E7%A9%BA%E9%94%81%E7%A5%96%E9%BE%99%E5%B1%85&rn=&fenlei=256&oq=&rsv_pq=c12ae7c900003ecf&rsv_t=0b9fwtxKkdtlN21ATR6zakGbD%2Bd5kiv7CzDbrkk2wZVIYzkWMULN6sfYTmE&rqlang=cn

Good. That's a start.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 8:53:10 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 4:40:00 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 2:17:06 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:27:30 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 5:54:13 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:01:56 PM UTC-4, Byker wrote:
> > > > > > > "Johanne Strause" wrote in message news:sh75ba$5mh$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are many kinds of democracy out there in the world and US can no
> > > > > > > > longer say their democracy is the best.
> > > > > > > Anywhere else, a president-elect would
> > > > > > > decide to become president-for-life...
> > > > > > IMO, two 5 year terms is too short and too rigid. Will Xi become a president-for-life?
> > > > > > I don't believe that. At present, one could speculate but calling XI president-for-life is not
> > > > > > based on fact.
> > > > > Seems like you do not understand human nature. Xi will remain president until he is forced out by a more skilled opponent.
> > > > Have your god bestow to you a better understanding of human nature?
> > > > Or do you think you are better human and therefore you have better understanding of human nature?
> > > I am not hindered by blind allegiance. Otherwise, I am simply another thinking individual.
> > > > > > More important, longer term presidency and democracy are not mutually exclusive. For example,
> > > > > > FDR would have served 16 years if he did not die during the fourth term of his presidency.
> > > > > > Currently, Angela Merkel is also serving her fourth term as the Chancellor of Germany.
> > > > > Which are all consistent with the rules at the time. Xi wants the rules to not apply to him.
> > > > What event is not the results of time and place?
> > > > If you have evidence that Xi changing the rule is not acceptable to the people, please inform.
> > > "The people" can't even write a poem that criticizes Mr. Xi without backlash. How would we know what they really find acceptable?
> > The Tang poem is widely accessible. Feel free to search Baidu.com.
> > I used the first 14 Chinese characters as the search term and the following is the return. It is not in anyway blocked.
> > https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=8&rsv_bp=1&rsv_idx=1&ch=&tn=baidu&bar=&wd=%E7%AB%B9%E5%B8%9B%E7%83%9F%E9%94%80%E5%B8%9D%E4%B8%9A%E8%99%9A%EF%BC%8C%E5%85%B3%E6%B2%B3%E7%A9%BA%E9%94%81%E7%A5%96%E9%BE%99%E5%B1%85&rn=&fenlei=256&oq=&rsv_pq=c12ae7c900003ecf&rsv_t=0b9fwtxKkdtlN21ATR6zakGbD%2Bd5kiv7CzDbrkk2wZVIYzkWMULN6sfYTmE&rqlang=cn
> Good. That's a start.

A "start" for what?
Going back 1,300 years to the Tang Dynasty?
Forget the past!!!
Live for the future!!!!