“Why yes, I always envisioned Fartbuckle to be a tragic character destined for great sacrifice.”

The UN hasn’t explicitly called it genocide, but if you assume China’s motivation is to reduce their population, it seems hard to argue its actions wouldn’t qualify. Widespread arbitrary imprisonment and certainly forced sterilization would meet at least condition 4 of their requirement. The Genocide Convention’s definition is below, emphasis mine:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

You could argue they don’t actually intend to reduce the Uyghur population, but it’s hard to accept that a surge in the Xinjiang region’s sterilization rate and the birth rate being cut in half over the course of three years are just anti-terrorism measures.

This doesn’t even need to be for a crime if you consider eminent domain. And all industries still face regulation in a capitalist nation like the US, meaning industry is only given as much leeway as the state allows.

Private “ownership” is an exaggeration for convenience; the office building you own may still be searched without permission or notice if you are suspected of a crime, it may be seized if you are late with paying taxes or simply do not maintain it, you may not own mineral rights or the right to restrict aviation above it, and you need the approval of the local government to make certain construction projects on it.

The definitions I hear for socialism could often apply to the US or any other capitalist nation.

Exactly how I feel. It is certainly favoritism that undermines our justice system, but I think very few people would choose not to intervene to save a child they loved from great suffering, even if they knew their child had earned the punishment. It may be wrong, but it’s very understandable that in this case he prioritizes being a good father over being a good president.

There’s plenty of blame to go around.

First of all, it’s your vote and it’s up to you to cast it (or not) as you see fit. Anyone saying you have an obligation to use it a certain way is violating fundamental democratic values. But other people likewise have the right to judge your decision.

I would say not voting for one of the main parties would show them that the distinction between them doesn’t matter, and so their leadership does not need to be more or less radical to cater to you. And not voting for even a third party shows that effectively no one can meet your standards, so policymakers can entirely ignore whatever it is you care about.

Protesting with your vote, like all protests, only works when your actions actually motivate the intended recipients to act as you want them to. Otherwise, it’s just performative self-indulgence.

Trump is projected to win the popular vote too, the first time a Republican presidential candidate has since 2004. There are more of the other guys showing up at least.