I could make up a slur to refer to liberals such as "dronies" referring to drone strikes by the Obama administration they support, or "bombies" for supporting Europe when it bombed Iraq and Libya and Yugoslavia.

Actually, I think that's a good idea. Call out people that blindly endorse violence or support a given government uncritically. I'd still rather have a bombie government that bombs the middle east than a nazi one that does so too, but worse, and also actively tries to remove any potential for resistance from their own people, but saying "A bombie isn't as bad as a nazi" at least carries the subtext "(but still bad)".

(Obviously, not bombing would be best. Imperialism is a despicable policy.)

It also kinda sidesteps the ambiguous definitions and interpretations of liberal philosophy. For instance, I'd consider imperialism to be decidedly illiberal, given its disregard for the consent of the governed, but that obviously isn't a universal understanding. I'd rather not get into that here, so let's just agree to call bombing-apologists bombies.

Bringing up China in the context of public transit should be regarded well.

The post brings it up in the context of a particular candidate's opinions on China's mode of government and civil liberties. If it specifically pointed out "China's public transport is...", I'd agree with you. But just because this aspect is nice, that doesn't mean China as a whole should necessarily be regarded well.

(Again, I just want to point out the logic arising from the premise that the candidate does defend China; whether that premise is true is beyond me, and whether the claim is true is not something I'll argue about here. Trying to have a chill, civil Sunday and all.)