> Is a country democratic if it has local elections and at the same time segreggate their own and drone other nations - while removing democratically elected presidents ?

I assume you're referring to America. And my answer would be that yes, as abhorrent as segregation, drone strikes and backing coups in other countries is, that doesn't nullify the elections held within that country. It's still a democracy.

So You're agreeing with me that this is bullshit and US is not a democracy? After all, Obama was elected to halt Wars and we are on the brink of WWIII. You vote but don't get what you elect. Now, if we add big money to the sum, I would say the American polítical regime is the worst in the world.

No, actually I said that the US is still a democracy.

People voted for Obama and they got Obama. Obama may have said what he wanted to do in office back in 2008 and then not been able to achieve those things, but that doesn't make the US undemocratic. That's how representative democracy works - you vote for representatives, not policies.

Well Filipinos voted for this President who was very clear on his policues and they got him and he is doing what he promised. Democracy right though perhaps not to everyone's taste. What is then the objection?

Well, I object to the policy itself in the first place. Extrajudicial executions, regardless of whether or not a popularly elected president encourages (or even orders) them, are fundamentally contrary to the rule of law and basic human rights.

Edit: Additionally, extrajudicial executions are a sign that Duterte doesn't respect the law. If he continues to encourage vigilante killings, there is precedent for him to encourage law breaking in other areas. Who's not to say there won't be electoral laws being flouted?

Do you think the American political regime is worse than Venezuela's? Vietnam? Thailand? Brazil? Libya? I think the majority of people would argue the list of superior systems is 90% shorter than the list of inferior.

Yep. After all, the political problems of the ones you cited all goes back to the American regime.

> I would say the American polítical regime is the worst in the world

But not for the people living there.

People supporting Trump (right wing), people supporting Bernie Sanders (left wing) and BLM (both) don't agree with this. But yeah, you have a great piece of America's population that got a lot from this world-wide regime.

If you're calling the political system in the United States a 'regime', then both Sanders (as a legislator) and Trump (as a member of both parties and donor) are both a part of it. Both Sanders and Trump support the American political system as much as Clinton.

Both are part of the regime, but people that support them do it because they don't feel included in the political system.

To be fair, he is referring specifically to a liberal democracy, which isn't just "democratic".

By the way, I hope you realize this borders Ad Hominem. Does the US have it's issues that it needs to solve? Yes. Does that somehow void out argument that extrajudicial killings are okay? No.

As many others have pointed out, the difference is you have BLM here and Atlantic articles that point out drone strikes publishing in the US, and there is some movement (although, not as rapid as many of us would wish for) on the ground to make things better. With extrajudicial killings, it seems reasonable to assume that if there will be evil, it can be easily covered up by the powers that be, labeling critics as drugees and moving on.

One of the things about the West and the US is that you even hear about our ills and evils, while countries like China and Russia stiffle criticizing voices within their own populace. That gives the appearance of "hypocrisy" while to me, it is more like evidence of a freedom of press that we should be proud of.

> As many others have pointed out, the difference is you have BLM here and Atlantic articles that point out drone strikes publishing in the US, and there is some movement (although, not as rapid as many of us would wish for) on the ground to make things better

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria. I disagree with you that any of these events created a better ground for the next one. I would say exactly the opposite, as the US govt started to drone even their own citizens.

And Crimea and Tibetan monks is okay?

Again, we aren't perfect saints, and we have evils that we need to fight from certain politicians and yes segments of the population who are ignorant to the effects of our "foreign policy". I'd even argue the anti-interventionist rhetoric of Trump and Sanders is part of why they are popular, so that group of pro-interventionist, I-Don't-Give-a-Fuck-About-Non-Americans group is quickly shrinking.

But the entire point of my comment, which you seem to have filtered out in your reply is that you read in popular US media about these issues, from many in the US mainstream press. Where in Russian media will you hear about the Crimean invasion? (A negative perspective, at least) Or the plight of Tibetan monks in China?

The world isn't black and white, but the idea of liberal democracy I think is a worthy ideal, even if we fall short of it precisely with what we have done in the Middle East, towards left-ist governments in South America. At the very least, the fact we can even have this conversation is a testament to the (possibly degrading) freedom of speech that we are lucky to have in the US and one that seems to be waning now in Philippines specifically.

> At the very least, the fact we can even have this conversation is a testament to the (possibly degrading) freedom of speech that we are lucky to have in the US and one that seems to be waning now in Philippines specifically.

I'm sure some agencies of your country already knows (or may know, if they need/want) that I don't think good stuff about this "western" democracy and the US intervention in other democracies. This is not freedom of speech. This is terror.