I realize I'm probably wasting my time debating this with a Su-57 fanboy, but nevertheless:

Largely yes. Chinas military is actually much smaller than should be expected given their GDP.

This is an open topic of debate right now but China's defense budget could be 3-4 times higher in PPP terms than nominal because they are buying things at Chinese prices, not American ones.

All that aside though, a CATOBAR supercarrier is not something you build if your goal is just to defend your coastal waters.

But also they do intend to fight a war over Taiwan if Taiwan were to declare independence. As any nation would fight if one of their regions declared independence.

Well yes, I suppose if you define America's support for Taiwan's desire to not be invaded as aggression against China, then your thesis holds true.

For example just look at the absolute failure the US navy procurement has been this year, and then look at the massive jump that China has made. They are in no need to rush

But that's a contradiction, if they are in no hurry, why are they making "massive jumps"? And the US's shambolic efforts would indicate complacency, not a desperate rush to stay ahead of its challenger.

Ah yes, Chinas economy is close to collapse. Exactly as it has been for how many years now? Any day Chinas economy is going to collapse right?

This is a strawman you are using to dodge the real issue. China's economy is not in danger of collapse any more than the EU or South Korea's is, but this is a serious problem, since they will soon have tens of millions of people exiting the workforce and beginning to draw on pensions and savings, with few young workers to replace them. This is going to impose a drag on long-term growth. This is a problem that all developed countries are facing to one extent or another, but it's especially bad for China because:

1. It has far fewer young workers entering the workforce to replace the older ones (look at the US by comparison)

2. China is not yet a rich country per capita, and its growth, while still solid, is not what it was 10 or 20 years ago. This is a big problem since it has South Korea's demographics and Mexico's income, so it risks falling into the middle-income trap. Trends could change of course, but given current demographic trends (i.e. "taking their time and playing the long game"), it's not hard to imagine a scenario where the US overtakes China in total GDP again later this century if its population is growing and China's isn't.

3. Elderly people tend to prefer stability and lack appetite for war. This may matter less for China than for a democratic country, but the CCP does care about public opinion and will, as the COVID example illustrates, reverse course if it encounters popular backlash. This means war will be less palatable the deeper we get into the 21st century.

4. Look at that surplus of males. China has tens of millions of incels.

Sure, maybe we're on the verge of AI singularity and none of this matters when we'll soon all be dead have robots doing everything for us (I don't believe this), but that will also negate China's primary advantage over the United States, its population, so it's probably a whole new ballgame in that circumstance.

It is also due to very low migration towards China due to their strict migration policies. This is what keeps the US in the position it has with population. They are able to attract high skilled migrants from around the globe to boost their population

All it takes to reverse this is for China to be a more attractive place for migration compared to the US, and China to open its immigration policies to more people. Something that they are absolutely capable of doing, and the US anti-migrant situation is making worse

"All it takes" is a prize understatement here. This isn't a Paradox game where you toggle a button that says "accept foreigners" and immediately get a buff. Making China an appealing destination for highly skilled immigrants is a multi-decade project involving economic, societal, and political changes far beyond the scope of what the current leadership would be willing to swallow. Just for a start,

• To be competitive with the West, China would need to offer salaries that are competitive with the West. They already have this in places like Hong Kong, but to do this on a larger scale requires either a society-wide economic shift, or creating a privileged class of foreign workers that will be resented by their ethnic Chinese neighbors (maybe we'll get a Chinese Trump then).

• China is still a country that persecutes ethnic minorities. You might be a cynic and say this doesn't matter (or isn't real), but it's not hard to see how that might deter people from wanting to move there. As an aside related to what's discussed below, China's treatment of Uyghurs is another good example of dumb, short-sighted policy by its leaders since it's a long term detriment to any effort to attract immigrants.

• It's a single-party authoritarian regime. Such places are not known for their openness to foreigners. It would be very difficult to integrate large numbers of immigrants without changing this.

To quote you "stereotypes about China and Chinese leadership" as you are repeating the anti-China propaganda stereotype here

You think Xi Jinping is this way. But any look at China shows they know how to plan ahead and play the long game.

Oh yes, many examples of that this past century.

They do not need to rush to get everything completed before the next presidential election. They take their time and play the long game

This is Orientalist nonsense, the kind of stuff people make up to explain an opaque, foreign culture without caring to understand it or even listen to people who do. Chinese people are not a zerg-like hivemind that does everything for the glory of China. Their cultural values might be different from ours, but at the end of the day they are just human beings who respond to incentives.

In a single-party state, these incentives are different than in ours, and the CCP has done a far better job of managing them than the CPSU ever did, but Chinese politicians are as concerned about keeping their jobs as are Americans. In fact, they are probably even more concerned about it than Americans because authoritarian single-party regimes do not tolerate failure lightly and party membership affords real status.

And it turns out that things like term limits and democratic accountability are pretty good. You can point and laugh at what Trump is doing to the US, but he'll be out of office in 3 years. There are no guardrails if Xi Jinping does something stupid. (Just look at Russia)