zlacker

> Don't ever trust the Chinese government on issues that could potentially involve the reputation of the party

Seems this holds true for every government and party.

>>Udik+(OP)
The difference is there is no opposition to question the official stance. So I’d say it’s naive to imply the same holds true everywhere. Even Russia and Turkey have vocal dissidents.

>>Udik+(OP)
Air Pistols and machine guns are both guns, which one are you taking your chance against?

>>mc32+p1
Last time I checked Turkey is still democracy. A better example would be Egypt or KSA or UAE.

>>sa-mao+r5
They’re a democracy in the same way Russia is a democracy.

>>mc32+V5
Hmm I don’t think so. They’re autocratic for sure but Turkey has been an autocratic democracy for a hundred years so there is a culture of republicanism. I get what you mean but Russia is so new to the voting thing that the comparison isn’t apt imo.

>>Udik+(OP)
Most governments and political parties are not capable of or willing to exercise the same information controls that the CCP does. That doesn’t make them trustworthy, but it does make it easier to 1. Check their bullshit 2. Discuss their bullshit freely and 3. Call them out on their bullshit without being disappeared, only to turn up later and sign false confessions/apologies/whatever the Party tells you to.

Having separate and distinct parties and competitive elections also puts parties in the position of doing this to each other using the levers of power available to them.

>>mc32+V5
I wouldn’t go as far as comparing Turkey to Russia. The recent Turkish elections have shown that the ruling Party in Turkey can lose key strongholds like Istanbul, this never happens in Russia. In Egypt, most contenders to the presidency are in prison now. Current president Al Sissi (a bloody dictator won by 97%) Erdogan om the other hand won by 53%. Putin by 73% while some major opposition leaders barred from running.

Turkey is often unfairly criticised by western media, which obviously prefers military dictators in power.

>>Udik+(OP)
It disingenuous and lazy to make broad statements of equivalence like this. There are very obvious differences in how the world’s governments operate.

>>bottle+7y
Oh yes? Shall we trust the US government in a good investigation on their motives to finance the bloody disaster that is the civil war in Syria? How about we send a Chinese delegation to check the documents inside the Pentagon or the CIA?

>>Udik+Sy
Yes, you are absolutely right. Look at all the political interference in Puerto Rico, not to mention the prison camps in Ohio.

>>Udik+Sy
If you vote for the right people, and advocate enough, you can get a congressional inquiry into the issue, a change in the law, or a precedent-setting court ruling. Point me to analogous outcomes under the Chinese system.

>>Udik+Sy
Every 4-8 years the US government gets a new executive head, often from the opposition. That puts significant constraints on what kind of corruption can flourish.

>>Udik+(OP)
It was just a little over a decade ago that the United States killed 300,000 + Iraqis, but it's in vouge to portray China and Russia as the worlds ultimate boogeyman.

>>Udik+Sy
Regardless of your view point, there is still has freedom of speech, mostly free information and elections that matters so if the people dislike the policy they can change it.

Not saying it’s all golden, but these are very meaningful differences.

>>bluepi+Oz
You mean private prisons? Or did you mean "prison camps in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona"?

>>bottle+7y
>It disingenuous and lazy to make broad statements of equivalence like this.

It's also disingenuous and lazy to ignore a century or more of empirical evidence.

>There are very obvious differences in how the world’s governments operate.

Are there?

https://www.amazon.com/All-Governments-Lie-Times-Journalist/...

>>kmonse+qH
>Regardless of your view point, there is still has freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is irrelevant if speech doesn't have consequences to those in power. Even less so if there are plenty to tow the establishment's lines anyway...

>and elections that matters so if the people dislike the policy they can change it

LOL, yeah, they can vote between one or the other corporatist neoliberal party, complicit in everything except a few token issues they use to lure their faithful. Such choice...

>>coldte+xO
I’m not here to give a history lesson, as there are many better sources. What I will do is call out fallacies when I see them.

>>kmonse+qH
Which freedom of speech? That they don't send you to prison if you say something your neoliberal high priesthood does not like? Perhaps not, but you very well might lose your job. Otherwise go search in your free speech media anything about Assange. Now try to compare objectively Assange to Navalny and tell me why not.. Your freedom of speech is in a large part imaginary. As to the rule of law, if your legal system would get the attention it deserves, people would see that it is also in a large part a Hollywood myth