POLL: Wise Dictator or Stoopid Democrat

Remove all ads!

The question is simple, which one would you rather have ruling your country

A wise unquestioned dictator, a man/woman who knows what he/she is doing.
Choose this one for a strong and stable society, but few rights

A stoopid democrat (much like Bush) who has trouble speaking his native language, etc, etc.
Choose this one for your rights, freedom of speech, etc.

Me I´ll go for the dictator, i care more about society than myself

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 18 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Wise Dictator or Stoopid Democrat (18 votes.)

Wise Dictator or Stoopid Democrat (Choose 1)
* Wise Dictator - 50% (9)
* Stoopid Democrat - 50% (9)

 

Well, you know, first off, Bush is a Republican, so you might want to change that to stupid Republican , but I'd choose neither, really. I mean, if a dictator is so smart and so wise, then that person would know that dictatorship isn't the way to go, right? But that's just my way of thinking.

 

Oh look, another thread devoted to bashing Bush! don't you have something better to do? He's certainly better than the man that preceded him. Clinton with all of his puppy with all four paws in the air! If he were still in office he would probably have the aditude "please Mr. Hussain don't hurt us with those weapons!" and not have the strength to do what needs doing in the current situation. Anyway, that's all I think I see on this site more and more threads devoted to destroying the man's reputation in one way or another. Is Bush perfect? no he's not and isn't the best president this country has ever had, but since he's in office I support him!

 

Okay, that's your opinion, and I respect you for it, but honestly. Why does Bush want to go to war? 'Cause it needs to be done? Bah and humbug, I say! It doesn't need to be done, it's a cover-up for a much more sinister and inhumane plot, I think. This nation of ours would gain absolutely nothing if we went to war with Iraq except bragging rights for whooping Saddam's @$$. That's a bit pathetic, I think.

And last I heard, they didn't turn up any nukes over there. What if he doesn't have any? What reason would Bush have now to go to war? Oh, sure, he could say that they had ample time to hide them and whatnot, but last time I checked, nuclear silos weren't that easy to hide. IMO, I would like Bush a lot more if he had a legitimate reason to go to war other then the "cleansing the Earth of Saddam's filth" thing, 'cause it's got me unconvinced.

 

At Dark Goddess:
Did I say I agreed with him going to war? I may have implied that but I'm not so certain about the war. I would certainly like more clerification about a few things that went on over there with the UN weapons inspectors. If this can be resolved without a war so much the better but if war is what it takes...
That wasn't the point of my post though, I was using the situation in Iraq as an example of how badly Clinton or someone like him would have screwed up the situation (I suggest that you read my posts more carefully in the future.)
I'll restate what I said in my earlier post: Bush is far from perfect but during election he was the lesser of two evils (and yes I did vote thank you very much.) If you're curious my favorite president is FDR a Democrat.

 

I have this feeling that people are going to go with the former choice, but I'll have to say I'd like a "stoopid democrat (much like Bush) who has trouble speaking his native language, etc, etc." lead my country.

A dictator will get drunk on his power. He gets to do what he wants, and no one can say anything about it. I imagine sooner or later, this would be abused. Furthrmore, the dictator can't be unseated, short of a coup (and that brings around more trouble) or outside intervention. If a dictator is sitting around, he may eventually decide to just do something because he feels like it. And who (domestically) can stop him?

A President who makes bad choices, however, can't affect the country that much. Do you think that if Bush wants to invade Iraq, he can do it? The fact that America is about to let the bombs loose is probably because the Executive administration, the House of Representatives, and the Senate all are Republican (the latter two having a Republican majority). A President will worry about elections; a President is under pressure by the public; a President is vulnerable to impeachment. So far, the Presidents of the U.S. (for the most part) have acted in the interests of the people.

[ February 07, 2003, 02:09: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

Where is the grey option?

You got to know, it is not person(s) who runs the country, it is the system that runs the country. With a well defined, well structured, well established system, any britney spears can run the country, really.

 

Oh hooray!!! Another "Bush Bashing" topic - I am sooooo excited!! Seriously folks, let's give the man a break - whether we like him or not he is the president and deserves the respect that the title gives him.

 

The title does not make him deserving of respect.

Respect is earned, and he's not doing much to earn it.

Sadam is the "President" of Iraq......

 

The entire question is pretty much hypothetical and even then... well I'm not meaning to insult, but stupid.

I would go for a wise dictator over all other propositions. Truly wise people are very, very rare. If such a leader were put to the top of a democratic government, he'd be wasted there being unable to do anything for the resistance of the stupid masses. Whereas a dictator could do whatever wise changes and desicions she saw fit without caring about the ignorant idiots that are her people.

Problem with democracy is that as everyone wants different things, nobody is ever satisfied and all changes take aeons, or an eternity, to take place. The problem with dictatorship then, is that power corrupts. Meaning, 99 999 out of 100 000 times, the leader is terribly suited for his task. And the people certainly aren't lead to any good there either.

Edit: As for the power of the people to decide themselves? Not only are people incredibly stupid, and quite often completely unaware of the facts that need to be known in order to lead a large organization such as a goverment of country, properly. Also, there is the little fact that the control would be that of the "people", not of the individual. Do not think that because of democracy you have the power to decide. It's the greatest, yet most working illusion of all. You have no power, none, zilch. Masses have the power. As long as you do not control the masses, but are a part of them, you are nothing but a vague piece of a tool for power. As an individual, only thing you have power over are the common things of your own personal life.

[ February 07, 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

 

Who the *bleep* said it was a Bushbash topic???
This has nothing to do with Saddam vs. Bush, okay?

As Foradasthar said, this is an hypothetical question

 

I care far more about myself than society...chalk up my vote for a stupid democratically elected leader.

Nevermind, I'll do it myself.

 

I'm going to go with the "stoopid democrat" as well, because of what was already stated.

Power corrupts, I don't care how wise or noble you are, get in a position of power where you can't be removed and you're just going to start doing whatever you want.

Also, I strongly value the freedoms that we have now. From looking at the results so far, it looks like the majority do, as well.

 

This is a meaningless poll, and a waste of server space.

Luckily for you, I am not a moderator, or I would shut it down for 2 reasons.

1. The poll provides no meaningful information as the question is formed in an incredibly biased way.

2. The thread is just a thinly veiled excuse to bash the President of the US, and there are already plenty of threads that you can post that on.

MEANINGLESS POLL
MEANINGLESS THREAD

[ February 08, 2003, 13:23: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Wise dictator for me, thank you very much.

People in large amounts are incredibly stupid, as has been seen thorough history. Also, bureocracy never works.

And Bush and Saddam have nothing to do with this.

(tired and too lazy to write more)

 

Stoopid democrat for me. If it gets too bad, I can always move away.

 

I would choose a stupid democrat any day. The idea of the enlightened despot may be attractive but alas it is impossible. As has been stated so corrupts power and even if he may start out with good intentions he wouldnt keep them. Secondly so is there no possibility for the people to express uncontentment with a wise despot but a stupid democrat wouldnt be reelected, hopefully.

 

I don't believe that it's a matter of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Rather, I believe it’s a matter of risk. As mentioned before, the dictator is wise; it can be presumed that the dictator will remain fairly stable. But the problem I have is the risk. There’s always the risk that he’ll go insane, get drunk off power, etc. If that happens, how do we remedy the nation of the disease? Even if you did, who would claim power then? The nation would most likely be in shambles.

 

You should see the question as this:

Are you willing to sacrifice your rights for the good of society??

oh and Darkwolf, get a life, will ya??

[ February 08, 2003, 23:27: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

If that were the question, why would leadership matter? It's not impossible to have a benevolent dictator (given that he's "wise"), or a President who leads poorly, but is kept in check by the people. It doesn't matter then who your leader is.

On that question, Morgoth, if I sacrificed my basic rights, (freedom, right to peace, pursuit of happiness, so forth) for the good of society, it basic means that we get a society of sheep. Even Nazis got to do what they wanted (but not the Jews, Communists, Gypsies, etc.). So I can't say; we've never experienced a complete totalitarian government with the interests of the people that come first.