Whether we like it or not, the CCP is an integral part of today's China, both the good and the bad.

So? Bolsonaro is an integral part of today's Brazil. Does that mean being anti-Bolsonaro equates to being anti-Brazil?

It's completely disingenuous to suggest that recognizing the horrors of an oppressive nation-state equates to some sort of bigotry against the country itself.

You will note that I suggest no such thing!

Chinese culture is older and broader than CCP's China†. E.g. here in San Francisco our Chinatown is older than the state of California‡.

† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese

‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown,_San_Francisco

Assuredly! I was careful to use the phrasing "is an integral part of", in acknowledgment that "China" is vaster/broader/older/etc.

Not in Taiwan!

If you are completely, militantly and with your entire being opposed to it, it is in fact still a part of you.

Is Taiwan China though? (mostly non-rhetorical, honest question)

No, it is not.

The people of Taiwan don't want any part of CCP China, and in spite of a lot of noise about "One China Policy" the only people arguing right now for reunification are Xi and the cadres.

Uh, the government of Taiwan considers itself a successor of the Republic of China and claims the mainland, just as the PROC/CCP claim Taiwan.

No difference really. Domestic approval ratings for the CCP are through the roof.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/913650298/as-u-s-views-of-chi...

While I wouldn't rule out that this is true, it's difficult to trust numbers like that in China since people are so afraid to voice their true opinion. When I lived in China I learned that it was a basic rule of society that you do not express opinions about the government with anyone except for your closest friends, and even then it is extremely rare. It's no surprise that this is the case given historical events such as the hundred flowers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign

more likely, you were treated as foreigner that no one really wanted to talk about government when you were present.

My experience is that they don't really think about it that hard because they don't have to. They've also seen their lives improve dramatically over the past 1.5 generations.

Does that include Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan? They're 'Domestic' according to the CCP right?

The total population of those 3 regions amounts to 50 million, less than 4% of China.

And yet Xinjiang makes up for 20 % of arrests in the entire country.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/19/chinas-treatment-of...

Have you ever heard of the FBI crime statistics?

This just goes to prove that something about the politics in Xinjiang is not right.

Conflation? There is a very distinct difference.

1. China, as a nation consists of ALL the citizens of said nation.

2. CPP, only consists of ruling party.

The people's opinions don't matter as to their grouping. I can still be for one group and against another.

Yeah I don't know how we could possibly validate that. It's similar to, but not the same as, measuring this in North Korea.

The Chinese people who do have free speech, in Taiwan, and did, in Hong Kong, certainly don't/didn't like the CCP much. Perhaps that's why the CCP felt the need to shut down freedom in Hong Kong - too much criticism.

If the CCP is so popular, why not have free speech and elections?

The answer here appears to be simple. Because elections and free speech are aspects of the system that by design introduce certain level of instability, but also a way to channel population frustration thus preventing having to resort to violence.

CCP chose stability of system above all else.

> The answer here appears to be simple.

It was a rhetorical question. The CCP doesn't allow elections and free speech because they don't want to lose power.

> elections and free speech are aspects of the system that by design introduce certain level of instability

That's the standard claim of dictators, including the CCP, but it's just their propaganda. Democratic governments are far more stable. Chinese democracies - Taiwan and Hong Kong - are/were very stable. Japan, South Korea, etc. When was the last time the US, UK, etc. had a stability problem? Compare that to China, North Korea, and the rest.

Also, that claim looks at it only from the dictator's point of view (a natural bias): Will my power last? I might be voted out at any time! I could be criticized into irrelevancy! That would be a catastrophe for the country if my great leadership was removed! Democracies change leaders frequently and with ease; it's rule of law, not of a person (or personality).

Finally, from the ordinary citizen's point of view, democracies are far more stable: Their rights are protected; they won't be arbitrarily arrested, have their assets seized, be sent to reeducation camps, etc.

It's people like you, and the predictable but classless act of keeping Wikimedia off WIPO (and similar ones) that gives CCP (and "China") bad rep all over world.

Many would have liked a/one more counterbalance to US hegemony. From the latest polls though, it seems people would rather the US hegemony continues/strengthens rather than seeing CCP/"China" rises further.

Such intangible acts will, sooner or later, have tangible consequences.

Latest polls from who? What polls are you talking about?

No, I lived in China, I got two know locals with wildly different opinions and reasons for thinking what they do.

They idea that there is any non-controlled wide-spanning media where this could be discovered is I'm afraid laughable.

It is against the law to criticize the CCP in China. What mechanism did the pollsters and researchers use to overcome that?

Moreover, as with democracy, it is more than having the right to vote. It is also the right to know what your elected representatives are up to and what the state of the nation is. So if you ask people thoroughly drowning in state enforced propaganda from an early age what they think about something, you'll usually get what the propaganda machine told them to think.

Here is one of the higher quality, long-term studies conducted by Harvard's Ash Center. You can read their full methodology below.

[1] https://ash.harvard.edu/news/ash-center-researchers-release-...

[2][pdf]: https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7...

I downloaded the report. It's a survey that does not seem to have had some way to overcome the reluctance to criticize when criticizing is against the law.

>So if you ask people thoroughly drowning in state enforced propaganda from an early age what they think about something, you'll usually get what the propaganda machine told them to think.

You have the option to stick with what the propaganda machine told to you to think.