At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic legitimacy.

According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.

How could an indifferent third party determine whether such assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable countries A and B in the real world.

Observations:
1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
Results: People do not think their government has the consent of the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority do not trust their government.

2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government

What could one conclude from the above?
The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.

Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a country is democratic or not democratic.

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic legitimacy.
>
> According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
> If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
>
> How could an indifferent third party determine whether such assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable countries A and B in the real world.
>
> Observations:
> 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
> Results: People do not think their government has the consent of the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority do not trust their government.
>
> 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
> Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
>
> What could one conclude from the above?
> The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
>
> Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a country is democratic or not democratic.

Just think of King Arthur and Camelot, the ideal time in history supposedly!!! and today in China!!!
Now!!! who needs voting!!! Just follow the golden rule!!! "Treat others as you yourself like to be treated!!!"

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic legitimacy.
>
> According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
> If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
>
> How could an indifferent third party determine whether such assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable countries A and B in the real world.
>
> Observations:
> 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
> Results: People do not think their government has the consent of the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority do not trust their government.
>
> 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
> Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
>
> What could one conclude from the above?
> The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
>
> Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a country is democratic or not democratic.

Wow! You've got it all figured out. Perfect!

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 11:22:06 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic legitimacy.
> >
> > According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
> > If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
> >
> > How could an indifferent third party determine whether such assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable countries A and B in the real world.
> >
> > Observations:
> > 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
> > Results: People do not think their government has the consent of the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority do not trust their government.
> >
> > 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
> > Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
> >
> > What could one conclude from the above?
> > The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
> >
> > Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a country is democratic or not democratic.
> Wow! You've got it all figured out. Perfect!

LT Lee!!! He can't even figure himself out!!!
He's only talking to himself!!!!

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 11:06:30 AM UTC-7, yale...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic legitimacy.
> >
> > According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
> > If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
> >
> > How could an indifferent third party determine whether such assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable countries A and B in the real world.
> >
> > Observations:
> > 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
> > Results: People do not think their government has the consent of the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority do not trust their government.
> >
> > 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
> > Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
> >
> > What could one conclude from the above?
> > The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
> >
> > Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a country is democratic or not democratic.
> Just think of King Arthur and Camelot, the ideal time in history supposedly!!! and today in China!!!

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Camelot-Court-of-King-Arthur/

> Now!!! who needs voting!!! Just follow the golden rule!!! "Treat others as you yourself like to be treated!!!"

Good idea.

Rusty Wyse <yale.mar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
>> At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is
>> either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a
>> country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X
>> confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic
>> legitimacy.
>>
>> According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
>> If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
>>
>> How could an indifferent third party determine whether such
>> assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable
>> countries A and B in the real world.
>>
>> Observations:
>> 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
>> Results: People do not think their government has the consent of the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority do not trust their government.
>>
>> 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
>> Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
>>
>> What could one conclude from the above?
>> The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
>>
>> Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical
>> conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a
>> country is democratic or not democratic.
>
> Just think of King Arthur and Camelot, the ideal time in history
> supposedly!!! and today in China!!!
> Now!!! who needs voting!!! Just follow the golden rule!!! "Treat
> others as you yourself like to be treated!!!"

Red China fairy tale needs no voting as long as economic growth stays
(very) high. Nothing lasts forever - ask WHEN (as fast/slowly)

--
A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
| Only fools are quoted. (Anonymous)

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:04:01 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> Rusty Wyse <yale...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> >> At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is
> >> either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a
> >> country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X
> >> confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic
> >> legitimacy.
> >>
> >> According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
> >> If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
> >>
> >> How could an indifferent third party determine whether such
> >> assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable
> >> countries A and B in the real world.
> >>
> >> Observations:
> >> 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
> >> Results: People do not think their government has the consent of the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority do not trust their government.
> >>
> >> 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
> >> Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
> >>
> >> What could one conclude from the above?
> >> The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
> >>
> >> Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical
> >> conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a
> >> country is democratic or not democratic.
> >
> > Just think of King Arthur and Camelot, the ideal time in history
> > supposedly!!! and today in China!!!
> > Now!!! who needs voting!!! Just follow the golden rule!!! "Treat
> > others as you yourself like to be treated!!!"
> Red China fairy tale needs no voting as long as economic growth stays
> (very) high. Nothing lasts forever - ask WHEN (as fast/slowly)

Heard this all the time.
People said this exactly because they don't know China and Confucianism.
We all saw the weak points of this kind of system. But this is actually the age
made for Chinese kind of political system.

CCP led China is likely to peak when it successfully reunite Taiwan. Taiwan
as an independent political entity would last longer, perhaps decades longer,
than the US as we know it today.

>
> --
> A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
> | Only fools are quoted. (Anonymous)

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:04:01 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> Rusty Wyse <yale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is
>> >> either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a
>> >> country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X
>> >> confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic
>> >> legitimacy.
>> >>
>> >> According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
>> >> If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
>> >>
>> >> How could an indifferent third party determine whether such
>> >> assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable
>> >> countries A and B in the real world.
>> >>
>> >> Observations:
>> >> 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
>> >> Results: People do not think their government has the consent of
>> >> the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority
>> >> do not trust their government.
>> >>
>> >> 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
>> >> Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
>> >>
>> >> What could one conclude from the above?
>> >> The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
>> >>
>> >> Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical
>> >> conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a
>> >> country is democratic or not democratic.
>> >
>> > Just think of King Arthur and Camelot, the ideal time in history
>> > supposedly!!! and today in China!!!
>> > Now!!! who needs voting!!! Just follow the golden rule!!! "Treat
>> > others as you yourself like to be treated!!!"
>> Red China fairy tale needs no voting as long as economic growth stays
>> (very) high. Nothing lasts forever - ask WHEN (as fast/slowly)
>
> Heard this all the time.
> People said this exactly because they don't know China and Confucianism.
> We all saw the weak points of this kind of system. But this is actually the age
> made for Chinese kind of political system.
>
> CCP led China is likely to peak when it successfully reunite Taiwan. Taiwan
> as an independent political entity would last longer, perhaps decades longer,
> than the US as we know it today.

The mandate of heaven is transferable.
"The king is dead. Long live the king" may be easily adapted to dynasties.
I do not bet it is going to happen *soon*.
It may happen (long) after my lifetime but IT WILL HAPPEN (without WW3).

Take a look at powerful members of Eight-Nation Alliance (1900) [A].
There is no Austro-Hungary. Only UK an US have avoided existential
"breaks" but there is no British Empire.

[A] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance

--
A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
| Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are
| all thumbs. (Glaser and Way)

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 12:21:13 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:04:01 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> > Rusty Wyse <yale...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > >> At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is
> > >> either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a
> > >> country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X
> > >> confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic
> > >> legitimacy.
> > >>
> > >> According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
> > >> If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
> > >>
> > >> How could an indifferent third party determine whether such
> > >> assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable
> > >> countries A and B in the real world.
> > >>
> > >> Observations:
> > >> 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
> > >> Results: People do not think their government has the consent of the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority do not trust their government.
> > >>
> > >> 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
> > >> Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
> > >>
> > >> What could one conclude from the above?
> > >> The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
> > >>
> > >> Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical
> > >> conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a
> > >> country is democratic or not democratic.
> > >
> > > Just think of King Arthur and Camelot, the ideal time in history
> > > supposedly!!! and today in China!!!
> > > Now!!! who needs voting!!! Just follow the golden rule!!! "Treat
> > > others as you yourself like to be treated!!!"
> > Red China fairy tale needs no voting as long as economic growth stays
> > (very) high. Nothing lasts forever - ask WHEN (as fast/slowly)
> Heard this all the time.
> People said this exactly because they don't know China and Confucianism.
> We all saw the weak points of this kind of system. But this is actually the age
> made for Chinese kind of political system.

China can not go any lower when the CCP took control of China. Any honest leader could have done well...

>
> CCP led China is likely to peak when it successfully reunite Taiwan.

The question of Taiwan has become just a talking point. China need not do anything... but sit and wait... Taiwan cannot go anywhere... No nation can afford to get involve in Taiwan's affairs... not even the U.S.

>Taiwan
> as an independent political entity would last longer, perhaps decades longer,
> than the US as we know it today.

Taiwan is only alive with the U.S. holding it up... and China allows this because it is draining American resources, weakening America in a long run... and Uncle Sam doesn't realize it.

> >
> > --
> > A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
> > | Only fools are quoted. (Anonymous)

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 12:53:49 PM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic legitimacy.
>
> According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
> If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
>
> How could an indifferent third party determine whether such assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable countries A and B in the real world.
>
> Observations:
> 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
> Results: People do not think their government has the consent of the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority do not trust their government.
>
> 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
> Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
>
> What could one conclude from the above?
> The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
>
> Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a country is democratic or not democratic.

Anyway, the Chinese government has made clear that it is a democracy, a whole process democracy. Equal if not better than Western Democracy.
More important, the Chinese had spoken up according to survey results.
1. They consider Democracy important.
2. And China is a democracy.

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:52:37 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:04:01 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> Rusty Wyse <yale...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> >> >> At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is
> >> >> either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a
> >> >> country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X
> >> >> confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic
> >> >> legitimacy.
> >> >>
> >> >> According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
> >> >> If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
> >> >>
> >> >> How could an indifferent third party determine whether such
> >> >> assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable
> >> >> countries A and B in the real world.
> >> >>
> >> >> Observations:
> >> >> 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
> >> >> Results: People do not think their government has the consent of
> >> >> the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority
> >> >> do not trust their government.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
> >> >> Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
> >> >>
> >> >> What could one conclude from the above?
> >> >> The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical
> >> >> conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a
> >> >> country is democratic or not democratic.
> >> >
> >> > Just think of King Arthur and Camelot, the ideal time in history
> >> > supposedly!!! and today in China!!!
> >> > Now!!! who needs voting!!! Just follow the golden rule!!! "Treat
> >> > others as you yourself like to be treated!!!"
> >> Red China fairy tale needs no voting as long as economic growth stays
> >> (very) high. Nothing lasts forever - ask WHEN (as fast/slowly)
> >
> > Heard this all the time.
> > People said this exactly because they don't know China and Confucianism.
> > We all saw the weak points of this kind of system. But this is actually the age
> > made for Chinese kind of political system.
> >
> > CCP led China is likely to peak when it successfully reunite Taiwan. Taiwan
> > as an independent political entity would last longer, perhaps decades longer,
> > than the US as we know it today.
> The mandate of heaven is transferable.

I got what you meant the first time.
This why I said CCP led China would PEAK after it had reunited Taiwan.
Nations rise, peak, and eventually decline is the iron rule of history according to Chinese point of view.

Currently, the sword of damocles is hanging over the US as far as I can see. Not China.

> "The king is dead. Long live the king" may be easily adapted to dynasties.
> I do not bet it is going to happen *soon*.
> It may happen (long) after my lifetime but IT WILL HAPPEN (without WW3).
>
> Take a look at powerful members of Eight-Nation Alliance (1900) [A].
> There is no Austro-Hungary. Only UK an US have avoided existential
> "breaks" but there is no British Empire.
>
> [A] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance
> --
> A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
> | Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are
> | all thumbs. (Glaser and Way)

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 5:04:47 AM UTC-10, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:52:37 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:04:01 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> > >> Rusty Wyse <yale...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > >> >> At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is
> > >> >> either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a
> > >> >> country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X
> > >> >> confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic
> > >> >> legitimacy.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
> > >> >> If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How could an indifferent third party determine whether such
> > >> >> assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable
> > >> >> countries A and B in the real world.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Observations:
> > >> >> 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
> > >> >> Results: People do not think their government has the consent of
> > >> >> the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority
> > >> >> do not trust their government.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
> > >> >> Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
> > >> >>
> > >> >> What could one conclude from the above?
> > >> >> The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical
> > >> >> conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a
> > >> >> country is democratic or not democratic.
> > >> >
> > >> > Just think of King Arthur and Camelot, the ideal time in history
> > >> > supposedly!!! and today in China!!!
> > >> > Now!!! who needs voting!!! Just follow the golden rule!!! "Treat
> > >> > others as you yourself like to be treated!!!"
> > >> Red China fairy tale needs no voting as long as economic growth stays
> > >> (very) high. Nothing lasts forever - ask WHEN (as fast/slowly)
> > >
> > > Heard this all the time.
> > > People said this exactly because they don't know China and Confucianism.
> > > We all saw the weak points of this kind of system. But this is actually the age
> > > made for Chinese kind of political system.
> > >
> > > CCP led China is likely to peak when it successfully reunite Taiwan. Taiwan
> > > as an independent political entity would last longer, perhaps decades longer,
> > > than the US as we know it today.
> > The mandate of heaven is transferable.
> I got what you meant the first time.
> This why I said CCP led China would PEAK after it had reunited Taiwan.
> Nations rise, peak, and eventually decline is the iron rule of history according to Chinese point of view.
>
> Currently, the sword of damocles is hanging over the US as far as I can see. Not China.
> > "The king is dead. Long live the king" may be easily adapted to dynasties.
> > I do not bet it is going to happen *soon*.
> > It may happen (long) after my lifetime but IT WILL HAPPEN (without WW3)..
> >
> > Take a look at powerful members of Eight-Nation Alliance (1900) [A].
> > There is no Austro-Hungary. Only UK an US have avoided existential
> > "breaks" but there is no British Empire.
> >
> > [A] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance
> > --
> > A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
> > | Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are
> > | all thumbs. (Glaser and Way)

The age of monarchies has passed with only a few left today. The age of mercantilism replaced it with representative government of the people. Americans based their equality under the Creator and wrote it into their constitution to form a republic. Marxist communism/socialism is based on atheism or "equality" by slavery which is self contradictory.

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 8:50:10 AM UTC-4, Jedi Master wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 5:04:47 AM UTC-10, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:52:37 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:04:01 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> > > >> Rusty Wyse <yale...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:53:49 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > >> >> At present many people firmly believe that certain procedure X is
> > > >> >> either the necessary and/or the sufficient condition will make a
> > > >> >> country democratic. Part of the belief is that a fair procedure X
> > > >> >> confers the government the consent of the governed. Hence democratic
> > > >> >> legitimacy.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> According to the above thinking, if such fair procedure X is carried out in Country A --> Country A is democratic.
> > > >> >> If fair procedure X is not carried out in Country B --> Country B cannot be democratic.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> How could an indifferent third party determine whether such
> > > >> >> assertion is right? He compare what have happened to two comparable
> > > >> >> countries A and B in the real world.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Observations:
> > > >> >> 1. A carried out procedure X fairly.
> > > >> >> Results: People do not think their government has the consent of
> > > >> >> the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority
> > > >> >> do not trust their government.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 2. B does not carry out procedure X at all.
> > > >> >> Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> What could one conclude from the above?
> > > >> >> The obvious answer is that a fairly carried out procedure X is irrelevant to democracy.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Substitute X with periodic voting or political freedom. The logical
> > > >> >> conclusion is that periodic voting is irrelevant to whether a
> > > >> >> country is democratic or not democratic.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Just think of King Arthur and Camelot, the ideal time in history
> > > >> > supposedly!!! and today in China!!!
> > > >> > Now!!! who needs voting!!! Just follow the golden rule!!! "Treat
> > > >> > others as you yourself like to be treated!!!"
> > > >> Red China fairy tale needs no voting as long as economic growth stays
> > > >> (very) high. Nothing lasts forever - ask WHEN (as fast/slowly)
> > > >
> > > > Heard this all the time.
> > > > People said this exactly because they don't know China and Confucianism.
> > > > We all saw the weak points of this kind of system. But this is actually the age
> > > > made for Chinese kind of political system.
> > > >
> > > > CCP led China is likely to peak when it successfully reunite Taiwan.. Taiwan
> > > > as an independent political entity would last longer, perhaps decades longer,
> > > > than the US as we know it today.
> > > The mandate of heaven is transferable.
> > I got what you meant the first time.
> > This why I said CCP led China would PEAK after it had reunited Taiwan.
> > Nations rise, peak, and eventually decline is the iron rule of history according to Chinese point of view.
> >
> > Currently, the sword of damocles is hanging over the US as far as I can see. Not China.
> > > "The king is dead. Long live the king" may be easily adapted to dynasties.
> > > I do not bet it is going to happen *soon*.
> > > It may happen (long) after my lifetime but IT WILL HAPPEN (without WW3).
> > >
> > > Take a look at powerful members of Eight-Nation Alliance (1900) [A].
> > > There is no Austro-Hungary. Only UK an US have avoided existential
> > > "breaks" but there is no British Empire.
> > >
> > > [A] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance
> > > --
> > > A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
> > > | Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are
> > > | all thumbs. (Glaser and Way)
> The age of monarchies has passed with only a few left today. The age of mercantilism replaced it with representative government of the people. Americans based their equality under the Creator and wrote it into their constitution to form a republic. Marxist communism/socialism is based on atheism or "equality" by slavery which is self contradictory.

Most Chinese considered China a democracy according to polls carried out by German organization.
Read the following article if you haven't read that before.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-26/which-nations-are-democracies-some-citizens-might-disagree