OK, let me generalise, so that you might see the point...

How do you remove a US president, or a British, Australian or NZ Prime Minister, if they are not doing so well? By a vote of the people.

How would you remove a President in China, if it were for the common good? What happened to that "two consecutive terms" clause? By a vote of the NPC... that'll happen.

Many Chinese also think the US is not a democracy. — ltlee1

I don't think much of US democracy, and have pointed out several times that you might learn more about democratic process by looking elsewhere.

"It's odd that you know a lot about Trump's supporters but you don't know what's happening to the Uighurs."

Not at all. I am not living in Xinjiang. Of course, I don't a lot about Xinjiang. Especially for made up events. I am living in the US. Hence I know a lot about the US.

In contrast, people who did not live in X and don't know the local language but somehow get the idea that they know everything about X is odd or worse. A certain American professor had written a book with the title of "How the News Makes Us Dumb: The Death of Wisdom in an Information Society."

OK, that book 1999 book written before the digital age may be dated. The newest versions are "How America lost its mind: The Assault on Reason That’s Crippling Our Democracy," and "The Death of Expertise:The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.

US media is indeed more entertaining than Chinese news. But also exacts a heavy price. IF the US is in decline, US media is partly to be blamed.

Whether or not the US is a democracy - it is not - has no bearing on whether or not China is. Not one bit. And China is about as democratic as my butt is hairless.

Again, you have a valid point.

I met Hong Konger in discussion forum who complained that the Chief of Hong Kong government was somehow appointed by China. I suggested to them. Hong Kongers should ask for the right to fire him or her before the term's end? If China keeps sending wrong people to lead Hong Kong, they all would be fired by the Hong Kong people. China would be embarrassed and would make sure its candidate would meet Hong Kongers's demand in the future.

However, I would distinguish between voting a person and voting a person out. The two are not the same. Voting in is mostly based on expectation, voting out is based on experience. No one can really tell the future. But they mostly know what have already happened to them, good or bad.

Again, the Chinese have decide themselves how to remove bad leaders.

"I don't think much of US democracy, and have pointed out several times that you might learn more about democratic process by looking elsewhere."

Whatever you think or don't think, most in the US, especially politicians, still think US is a democracy, perhaps the best. Again, the US is treating China as evil because it is not "democratic" like the US. The more the US not democratic, the most it would emphasize its democratic credential. This is the seed of a hot war. A war of good and evil.

"Whether or not the US is a democracy - it is not - has no bearing on whether or not China is. Not one bit."

The issue is how to really judge whether a country is democratic or not. Democratic would be vacuuous if the same standard could not be used. Is American criteria set a good criteria set. To the extent the the US America is not a democracy, its favor set of criteria cannot stand as universal.

Practical concern. Currently America is using it democratic credential to unite US society and to act hostilely to China internationally in the name of saving liberal democracy.

G John Ikenberry, had published a new book entitled "A World Safe For Liberal Internationalism."

The following is how this is book is introduced by Amazon.com:
"One of [the Biden team's] chief manifestos for change, as some of the incoming Bidenites have already privately conceded, will be G. John Ikenberry's new book, A World Safe for Democracy. . . the crowning achievement of the Princeton University's scholar's decades long work explaining and defending the liberal international order."

Of course, I don't a lot about Xinjiang. Especially for made up events. — ltlee1

Uh huh.

The issue is how to really judge whether a country is democratic or not. — ltlee1

And whether the US is democratic or not is totally irrelevant to this. I take it as obvious that the US is an excellent example of what to avoid when aiming run a democratic nation. If the US is doing it, it should probably be avoided, whatever 'it' is.

"Last, there's the federal government. It's not so much that it's not functioning. It's just that we have problems we don't currently know how to solve."

When could it be solved?

How so?

Are you suggesting a double standard?

What? No. Whether or not A is rubbish has nothing to do with whether B is rubbish.

When could it be solved? — ltlee1

Next paradigm shift. Could have happened in 2008, but Obama's guy fixed it.

But that new way will also eventually get old and ugly.

"Whether or not A is rubbish has nothing to do with whether B is rubbish."

You are absolutely right if A and B do not communicate with each other.
But currently A insists and many believe certain procedure X will make a country not rubbish. The claim is that a fair procedure X confers the government the consent of the governed.

According to the above thinkng, if fair procedure X is carried out in A --> A is not rubbish.
If fair procedure X is not carried out in B -->B is rubbish.

How could an indifferent third party determine whether A is right? He compare what happen to A and B in the real world.

Observations:
1. A carried out procedure X
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.
Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government

Conclusion, procedure X is irrelevant to whether a country is not rubbish

How else could one determine whether procedure X is relevant of irrelevant to preclude being rubbish?

How could an indifferent third party determine whether A is right? — ltlee1

You're being obtuse. Whatever the US says about itself or others is totally irrelavent to assessing democracy in China. Democracy is not, and has never been, an exclusive American posession. Especially given that America's political structure is in many ways explicitly anti-democratic. If you cannot bring yourself to talk about China's lack of democracy without having to detour through the US, then you are incapable of carrying out a discussion on the topic.

Anyone stupid enough to take the claims of a stupid person telling everyone else that they are not stupid at face value is the stupidest person in the room.

Not at all. I am not living in Xinjiang. Of course, I don't a lot about Xinjiang. Especially for made up events. I am living in the US. Hence I know a lot about the US. — ltlee1

So, you're denying that Uighurs are being sent off to concentration camps, oh sorry "vocational training camps", in a concerted effort to commit cultural genocide? Or that the Chinese government is harassing Uighurs abroad because they are trying to tell the world about it when they managed to escape that atrocity?

Are the people round up randomly?
If not, they had to be round up according to some criteria.
If Xi's experiment in sending officials to live with Uighurs was part of the identification process. There could not be too many. No matter how careful, these anthropological studies would inconvenient the families involved. This naturally limits the scale of the project.

Physically build the structure to house 10,000, let alone 1 million people, is not a small project. It takes a lot times and space, a lot of labor and money. After all , Xinjiang is not Afghanistan. Sporadic terrorist acts once or twice every few years. Yes. But in no way a huge threat. Improving people's living hood has a longer time horizon. If the experiment was successful, such reeducation school could continue year after year. No reason to build all the housing units all at once.

Understand you point of view.
Thank you all for allowing me to express some of my thoughts in this forum. Please forgive my obtuse writing.
If any of the you want to enlighten me on issues related to China or America, I frequently post my view on soc.culture.china.

Especially given that America's political structure is in many ways explicitly anti-democratic. — StreetlightX

True. Democracy needs drag mechanisms to avoid having the will of the people become the will of the mob.

This in no way is a reply to what I wrote. It's a confusing mess actually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037.amp

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/31/1001936433/who-the-uyghurs-are-and-why-china-is-targeting-them?t=1625078923562

https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/ook-in-nederland-worden-oeigoeren-onderdrukt-door-de-chinese-overheid~bef14078/

Even the most cursory knowledge of human history will expose as laughable the idea that the 'rule of the mob' could even be considered as a viable threat with respect to any sustained mode of political rule. It's one of those made up fairy tales proffered by elites to justify their continued hold on power, which has always been the predominant basis of political domination anywhere one cares to look. The American 'founding daddies', concerned above all to keep land and resources in the hands of the already propertied, knew this above all.

Even the most cursory knowledge of human history will expose as laughable the idea that the 'rule of the mob' could even be considered as a viable threat with respect to any sustained mode of political rule — StreetlightX

The people rule through laws. One way to create a drag on lawmaking is to require a super-majority. Another is to allow filibusters. Another is to have two different lawmaking bodies, a House and Senate.

None of these tactics would keep land in the hands of a ”daddy” if the people have a strong enough will to take it.

The theory isn't bad. The practical application has mixed results.