In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 10 2016 08:28 biology]major wrote: a truly great leader who is going to consolidate the interests of everyone - a recipe for disaster. A great leader is someone with a genuine vision for the country, and the capacity to get it done. It's up to the people to decide if that person's vision lines up with theirs.
A vision that would stand to benefit the nation and all it's people as best as possible without ignoring this group or that group.
If your vision is to profit the top 1% to the detriment of large chunks of your population, I wouldn't say that is being a great leader.
It's it much easier to fix a dysfunctional democratic than it is to fix a dysfunctional dictatorship. And the transfers of power is the reason we have democratic. Without the public mandate, changing rulers normal is resolved by violence.
On October 10 2016 08:32 Plansix wrote: It's it much easier to fix a dysfunctional democratic than it is to fix a dysfunctional dictatorship. And the transfers of power is the reason we have democratic. Without the public mandate, changing rulers normal is resolved by violence.
I agree with you, with the caveat that I don't really think it's easy to fix either in their dysfunctional form.
That wasn't the thought experiment that was posed however. It was would you compromise some democratic values for 40 years if you knew by doing so, it would stand to improve the quality of life of everyone and make the nation prosper?
On October 10 2016 08:32 Plansix wrote: It's it much easier to fix a dysfunctional democratic than it is to fix a dysfunctional dictatorship. And the transfers of power is the reason we have democratic. Without the public mandate, changing rulers normal is resolved by violence.
I agree with you, with the caveat that I don't really think it's easy to fix either in their dysfunctional form.
That wasn't the thought experiment that was posed however. It was would you compromise some democratic values for 40 years if you knew by doing so, it would stand to improve the quality of life of everyone and make the nation prosper?
Democratic is designed to be a fictional government over several generations. The issues with the 40 year dictoator is picking the new 40 year ruler. Or them not leaving power. Dictators rarely leave power willingly.
So the answer is no. Because it's a short term solution in terms of governments.
There are situations in which a long reigning leader is a definite positive. In a country facing existential threat of destruction, for example, sometimes freedoms have to be sacrificed for the sake of survival. That will lend itself to abuse, but if it allows the nation to survive then it's for the best. There will likely be blowback in the future (emergency powers are not easily surrendered) but democratic government isn't particularly good for consolidating an effort against such a threat so heavy handed leadership is best.
None of that is even remotely relevant to the US though, so it's an obvious no-no.
On October 10 2016 08:53 biology]major wrote: anyone else seeing trump w/ bill's accusers?
Trump just legitimized any and all attacks against him based on his past history of sexual assault. All the lawsuits. All the settled cases. The current lawsuit. Any leaked tape of him describing his love of assault. The media was correct to make this the top story and Trump wants it to be the top story all the way to the election.
Guess that pretty much settles the question how Trump will handle tonight. Appearing with Bill's accusers doesn't imply he is going to focus on policy; but that was wishful thinking by Trump's supporters to begin with.
On one hand I'm loving this shit-show, on the other it is pathetic for the campaign for the highest office in the most powerful country. =[
On October 10 2016 08:28 biology]major wrote: a truly great leader who is going to consolidate the interests of everyone - a recipe for disaster. A great leader is someone with a genuine vision for the country, and the capacity to get it done. It's up to the people to decide if that person's vision lines up with theirs.
I disargee; a great leader will consolidate them all; but note wherein they conflict, and try to ensure everyone gets the most important things ot them; weighing the value of various things to various groups. to lift all would be truly great.
I think dictatorships shouldn't really be confused with term limits. There are certainly historical examples of one person doing a good job leading a country for more than 8 years. In Norway, there are no term limits for the prime minister, and Einar Gerhardsen reigned for 17 years - and he's certainly considered one of our best, if not very best, prime ministers. FDR certainly among your greatest- and only one with more than 2 term limits. I think there are certainly valid reasons for why there should be a limit to how long one person can be president, but I'm not certain 8 years is that number. I get the argument about consolidation of power etc - but I also think that if one person clearly is the best suited person to lead the country and he's doing a bang job at it, it might be stupid to replace him.
Like, I think the surgeon analogy is generally pretty apt in describing why non-politicians shouldn't suddenly be elected for the highest office. Politics is actually a difficult profession - showcased by how many highly intelligent people manage to come off as incompetent. And imo, in much the same way you don't give someone with no education or experience a top surgeon job, you shouldn't appoint someone with no political competence or experience for the highest political office. It actually affects way more people than the misappointment of an incompetent surgeon anyway.
That also works another way- if you have the best surgeon in the country, you don't want him to stop working after 8 years. So like, even though there's a valid argument in favor of term limits with the whole consolidation of powers, there's also the counter argument that if someone is doing a sufficiently good job where there's agreement that (s)he's the best candidate for the job, they should get to keep doing their job.
As far as benevolent dictatorships go, from my admittingly limited understanding, there have been some pretty decent ones in south east asia, no? Like south korea had some benevolent transitional dictatorships, in Singapore Lee Kuan Yew might not fully qualify I guess, but I think he's been a fairly autocratic ruler who silenced opposition and who reigned for 30 years- but at the same time he did such a good job that there wasn't all that much opposition and he's given a whole lot of credit for Singapore's rapid and successful development. (I really don't know much about this, correct me if I'm wrong)
And while you can in theory argue that the benevolent dictator can exist, and while I think you can point at some historical examples where kings or dictators genuinely used all their efforts in bettering the conditions of their people and cared little about their own personal wealth or lavishness - and where genuine support in the population would be high enough to win democratic elections anyway - there's one inherent problem. The succession. Either you have parent to son/daughter succession which inevitably eventually produces a wholly unfit ruler, not to mention how anti-meritocratic the principle of the highest office of the land being inherited, or you are highly likely to face some form of power struggle which might lead to a civil war-ish state of affairs.
On October 10 2016 09:00 Kickstart wrote: Guess that pretty much settles the question how Trump will handle tonight. Appearing with Bill's accusers doesn't imply he is going to focus on policy; but that was wishful thinking by Trump's supporters to begin with.
On one hand I'm loving this shit-show, on the other it is pathetic for the campaign for the highest office in the most powerful country. =[
Honestly, what are his other choices? He has never once even tried to be competent on policy. It's always about vision, priorities, ideal situations and other appeals to emotion.
We can only imagine his debate prep has been less than ideal in the midst of this massive defection. He can't even stay focused after someone says something bad about him on Twitter. Ryan, Chaffetz and even his own VP choosing not to defend him? Corner and animal and it will strike.
Apparently one of the women Trump is using is the person who was supposedly raped by the person who Clinton got a not guilty ruling for? Dredging pretty deep in the sewer if he has to resort to something as asinine as that.
On October 10 2016 09:12 On_Slaught wrote: Apparently one of the women Trump is using is the person who was supposedly raped by the person who Clinton got a not guilty ruling for? Dredging pretty deep in the sewer if he has to resort to something as asinine as that.
edit - deleted misread what you said, so my comment no longer applies.
On October 10 2016 08:53 biology]major wrote: anyone else seeing trump w/ bill's accusers?
Trump just legitimized any and all attacks against him based on his past history of sexual assault. All the lawsuits. All the settled cases. The current lawsuit. Any leaked tape of him describing his love of assault. The media was correct to make this the top story and Trump wants it to be the top story all the way to the election.
Nobody that we would describe as hashtag never Trump thought the attacks were beyond the pale to begin with. What he's doing is hitting back. It's also a distraction from email/speech leaks. With the specter of Kaine at the VP debate people have figured out this is the Clinton campaign's entire strategy. They and the media together have steered the entire election focus into this narrative about boogey-Trump, themselves moving away from discussions of policy - such discussions are important for the American people (if not for their ratings). The reason is simple, Trump has no political record, so these are the substitute lines of attack. That he was a rich famous playboy and celebrity. It's an asymmetrical election and his challenge has always been how to wrestle back some control of the conversation. Tonight would be a good night.
On October 10 2016 09:12 On_Slaught wrote: Apparently one of the women Trump is using is the person who was supposedly raped by the person who Clinton got a not guilty ruling for? Dredging pretty deep in the sewer if he has to resort to something as asinine as that.
Pretty sure that is the one that plead guilty but got off relatively light because the prosecution sucked. She brought up the 'laughing about it video' so I assume that is the case.
EPT
