No, its just you mixing the civil values, rights and control of powers with democracy. They all can present in Autocracy if you want, and be absent in democracy. UK is autocracy, Third Reich was democracy.

Yes Germany was a democracy before the Third Reich came to be and then it turned in to Autocracy with Hitler. You should really explore the difference between the concepts.
This is what autocracy is:

An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control. - description of russia at the moment but you know that already.

Jeez, man... Take country. Who will decide what to do there? Land owner(s). In one case its one guy, on other case its a whole population. There is no clear definition what way is better. But after you somehow picked the way of decisionmaking - you have to act according to it. Some guys want to grow grain in this land, and some guys want to dug coal at same place, and some people doesnt care about it at all. If land is owned by one monarch - it would be as he will decide, and if all share the land - as they will decide. Its not make one was worse than others yet. Monarch can decide what there shouldnt be coal mining, just because he read newspapers and know what coal isnt needed in neibghouring countries much. And coal party, in other case could decide what they will try to perform theyr goal, and manipulate people who doesnt care to support it. So grain party have to obey, even if its silly. But its democratic decisionmaking. It not good by default, im talking only about it. And you sincerely keep using "democratic" as synonim of "good" or "fair". It isnt. Its simply about whos have the responcibility for decision made.
Well, power was in the hands of Nazi political party. They won elections etc. And theyr rule was disputed only by some terrorists bought by UK, arent it? And UK was the autocracy, with all power in the hands of the Queeny, on the other side. Or you woudlnt call Monarchy Autocracy? Its nonsence then.

Nazi party did not win the elections. Do you know any history at all? Nazi party had a third of the german parliament in 1933 and because of the legislation from that time it could dissolve the parliament if one party present in the parliamanet left the floor which nazis did 3 times before german president Hindenburg was forced to give Hitler the Chanchlership. And after Hindenburgs death Hitler illegaly fused the position of President and Chanchellor - so much about that. And after that Hitler forced the parliament where he had only 1/3 of represantitives to sign an enforcement act that turned him in to a dictator.
And UK is and was a constitutional monarchy which is one of the oldest forms of democracy. In a constitutional monarchy the monarch is only the titular head of the state (same as the president in any other country) with no other power. All the power lies with the parliament and the prime minister which is elected from the members of the parliament who are elected by the people. You really should do some research on this, otherweise you just fall out illiterate.

Don't argue with him. He already made a joke out of this threat arguing that NK is democratic country. Just let him go.

Yeah, you are right it is no use if he does not wan't to see the truth. He is just twisting things in a way no sane person can reason.

That what im talked about. You call the actions of democratically elected by people Hindenburg, and democratically elected by people representatives in parliament to increase the role of democratically elected by people Nazi party as dictatorship, and you call constitutional monarchy one of the oldest forms of democracy. This way could lead you to the idea what NK have no democracy, thats i got now.

No, how come its not democracy? Crazy things start when you claim what you can, and moreother should ban Nazi-like parties, what are not "respect the basic freedoms", but same time say "bah, they banned all other parties, how dare they?". Well, it come to defining the "basic freedoms", from theyr definition all other parties doesnt respect them much enough to be permitted. So you have to discuss those "basic freedoms" and not "democracy", and thats what i tried to talk about, but my lame English probablty failed me again.

Man, 2020? It depends on positive and negative scenarios, not easy to say. If West will keep the "Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia " line, as its looks to be right now - it could be very alive and well.

Well I think Putin's grab for influence in former Soviet countries will not stop until he get's it all back. But Russia is going to take a big economic hit which has already started to happen with russian stock markets showing stocks falling all the time, rubbel is losing value for two weeks now and the russian central bank had to increase interest rates to 7.5% (always the point when investors start running away). Since the german chanchellor said that Germany is prepared to take the economic hit by sanctioning Russia it might get bad for Russia at the end. I think that by 2020 the country will be isolated and only in contact with China and NK if that since China owns 2/3 of american state bonds and is financing their policys.

It like your spirit somehow but the answer doesn't give me much. What exactly does well mean? Better than today? Or worse? And well only for Russians or also for their neighbors?

I try to think about the implications and so far I've only come up with this. It's a conflict of interests, mostly Russia against the West. Both will face economic losses (hopefully only those) or solve the crisis. But both sides also seem to be particularly stubborn now. One of the biggest problems is that the trust is gone. From here Russia seems acting crazy and aggressive. We cannot ignore it and also without trust you cannot come to any agreement. The best for the West seems: let Crimea go, move together with all interested countries, become independent of the russian resources, wait what happens.

Man, you basically asked for a prediction there. What lead you to the idea what im psychic? Why 2020? Of course i cannot give you reliable answer, if i was able, id was busy selling it to some rich people instead of being on a forum of company, products of what im never used, and discussing the meaning of democracy in some topic about stuff what even not exist in the nature. If all sides will keep doing worse and worse because other guys do bad, and be happy to keep the balance during it - it will become Oceania-Eurasia-Ostasia, and they all will have fun and live long and happy. Will you decide what you are ok or not will depends on the level of doublethinking youll be able to develop those time. How could i tell, maybe youll be really happy in 2020, because unlike the 2018 you will have a whole 0.5 kg of potatoes \ week because your country will celebrate a fourth consequal final victory for the trench 4793?

"Trust is gone". Man, you seriously dont know from where "Trust Us" is?

It uses Soviet/ Russian Empire census data, while not explicitly stated its data points correspond with their censuses, eg 1897.

The graph may be biased or may be badly formatted by accident, but its context certainly implies (inaccurately) that there were more tartars than russians at the time of the deportations as you have to open the graph file itself to read the horizontal scale- manipulating axes' scale is a frequent technique used in propaganda and marketing to imply what you want without actually lying about it. If it were written with propaganda in mind it certainly wasn't a russian doing it.

Ok, about predictions. I just really was stumbled when you pick some 2020 year to check, better is try to keep to more recent dates imho. Best possible way what looks like now is something like Cyprus crisis of 1974. But its too unbelievable good, something from the land of fairies. Some other guy analyzed timelines between famous olympics and anshlusses and estimated 3 months to the suicide in the bunker. Cant be sure if his calculation was right, but looks as something roughly approximated right. There is also many bad case scenarios, but i guess you can easily imagine them by yourself. "IIf At First You Don't Succeed Call Airstike", as you know.

Nope, it's a sign of a very primitive and undeveloped legal system. Focusing on moral absolutes causes nothing but damage to human society. Instead focus on what is advanced in a society, and what is primitive, and actually try to improve it.

At one stage every country in Europe would of thought stoning a women for adultery was the height of "objective morality", it was absolutely the "right" thing to do. But today it's not, because society has advanced.

The key is not thinking with emotions, but by looking at things as they actually exist.