By joining the Communist Party and working your way up to the National People’s Congress, the Central Committee and eventually the Politburo through years of public service dedicated to improving the lives of the people, earning the trust of the people, and demonstrating that you are a competent administrator and a good representative of the people who can be trusted with making important decisions.

Why would you want to vote Xi out? This isn’t a deflection, it’s an understanding that the majority of people in China greatly approve of him, and to remove him would be anti-democratic. That said, the process of removing Xi can already be done democratically. If the people mobilized in local councils and changed delegates from the bottom up, if the CPC recalled him, etc. China’s democracy isn’t a liberal democracy overly concerned with individual politicians, but is more comprehensive and is about policy and direction of development.

Imagine having such impoverished imagination as to not be able to imagine how a democracy could work aside from the failed Western implementation of the concept. https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/rethinking-governance-through-outcomes

Well, I’m not huge on geography but it seems like you’re Australian. Geographically; Australia is not China. You are not allowed to vote in Chinese elections as of right now. Your president is not Xi Jinping, so you have no need, interest, or possible avenue to vote for or against him.

You can however, focus on your own countries candidates and immediate issues surrounding western Australian white supremacy especially (but not limited to) treatment of Maori people and other indigenous populations post genocide.

I hope this helps! Brought to you western liberals by Russian Chinese bot campaign :) beep boop

Whataboutism is just a term that imbeciles use to justify having a double standard.

Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighbourhood.[8] Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking).

From the article.

I’m pointing out that one of your precious democracies is locking up pensioners for their speech, providing context into whether critiques of censorship are relevant or fair. Either you can condemn the UK as not being a democracy to be consistent, or you can admit that democracies can restrict speech. Pick one, instead of just selectively disregarding the critique.

Get new material loser