US Election 2016

[Guard Dog]

 

That Hitler was a good leader is hard to argue. It's where he led everyone that made him a sonofabitch.

 

I'm not entirely convinced those two capabilities can be meaningfully differentiated when one tries to assess the overall quality of a leader.

 

Depends on the objective criteria of the discussion I guess. There is no questioning his quality as a human being (or lack thereof). He did lead his country out of ruin it's true. And after that right back into it. Can anyone think of a leader that was an evil SOB who was a good leader but in the end did more good than harm?

 

I know I'm drawing a blank.

[Leferd]

 

 

 

 

That Hitler was a good leader is hard to argue. It's where he led everyone that made him a sonofabitch.

I'm not entirely convinced those two capabilities can be meaningfully differentiated when one tries to assess the overall quality of a leader.

Depends on the objective criteria of the discussion I guess. There is no questioning his quality as a human being (or lack thereof). He did lead his country out of ruin it's true. And after that right back into it. Can anyone think of a leader that was an evil SOB who was a good leader but in the end did more good than harm?

 

I know I'm drawing a blank.

All highly debatable but...Genghis Khan, Andrew Jackson, Stalin, Pope Julius II, Pope Alexander VI, and George Steinbrenner.

[Hurlshort]

Hitler's prosperity was also a bit of a mirage.  The long term viability of the German economy under Nazi rule is very questionable.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

That Hitler was a good leader is hard to argue. It's where he led everyone that made him a sonofabitch.

I'm not entirely convinced those two capabilities can be meaningfully differentiated when one tries to assess the overall quality of a leader.

Depends on the objective criteria of the discussion I guess. There is no questioning his quality as a human being (or lack thereof). He did lead his country out of ruin it's true. And after that right back into it. Can anyone think of a leader that was an evil SOB who was a good leader but in the end did more good than harm?

 

I know I'm drawing a blank.

All highly debatable but...Genghis Khan, Andrew Jackson, Stalin, Pope Julius II, Pope Alexander VI, and George Steinbrenner.

 

Stalin? No f-ing way. That guy was net loss all the way. The others... meh. But the last one.... good answer.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

That Hitler was a good leader is hard to argue. It's where he led everyone that made him a sonofabitch.

 

I'm not entirely convinced those two capabilities can be meaningfully differentiated when one tries to assess the overall quality of a leader.

Depends on the objective criteria of the discussion I guess. There is no questioning his quality as a human being (or lack thereof). He did lead his country out of ruin it's true. And after that right back into it. Can anyone think of a leader that was an evil SOB who was a good leader but in the end did more good than harm?

I know I'm drawing a blank.

All highly debatable but...Genghis Khan, Andrew Jackson, Stalin, Pope Julius II, Pope Alexander VI, and George Steinbrenner.

Stalin? No f-ing way. That guy was net loss all the way. The others... meh. But the last one.... good answer.

Under Stalin the Soviet Union rapidly industrialized to the point of being able to rival, in military and scientific matters, the United States. Pretty impressive given that it was a largely unindustrialized backwater(it was just starting to industrialize when the overthrow and Russian Civil War happened) when he took control. You can very well argue his methods were monstrous, but denying his brutal push for industrialization and infrastructure didn't catapult the SU to world power status is sticking your head in the sand.

 

Hitler's prosperity was also a bit of a mirage.  The long term viability of the German economy under Nazi rule is very questionable.

That's because the economic miracle Germany achieved was due to firing up a war economy. Of course speculating on the long term viability is engaging in alternate history theory craft and it would be hard to say if Germany could have transitioned to a peace time economy under Nazi rule assuming the Great Depression ended.

[Meshugger]

A modest proposal would be to try avoid creating the very preconditions that makes it possible for damaging leaders to emerge to begin with.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Meshugger

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

A modest proposal would be to try avoid creating the very preconditions that makes it possible for damaging leaders to emerge to begin with.

Not going to happen. Such conditions are created with a multitude of factors independent of each other and aren't going to be controlled.

[Guard Dog]

Actually the solution is don't let your government become so big and all powerful that when one of these guys shows up they have the means to run amok. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Actually the solution is don't let your government become so big and all powerful that when one of these guys shows up they have the means to run amok.

 

Ok, the government is very small and has little power. So one of these guys instead shows up as a head of a multinational corporation and ****s up a lot of people's lives that way. With the TPP making a lot of governance subservient to large corporations and the recent financial crisis this isn't outside the realm of possibility.

[Guard Dog]

I really do not get the fear of this. The largest most powerful corporation in the world could not take one penny from my checking account without my permission but the smallest government right here in my home town can take all of it along with my house, dogs, property, freedom and even life. Granted not without some due process for what that is worth. We know who is climbing uphill on that score. If the the government is screwing you at the behest of a corporation is it still the government that is screwing you. 

 

Shrink that to the size of something you can drown in a bucket and it can't be used against you by "evil corporations" or power mad evil leaders alike. 

[ShadySands]

You need to play more Shadowrun GD

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I really do not get the fear of this. The largest most powerful corporation in the world could not take one penny from my checking account without my permission but the smallest government right here in my home town can take all of it along with my house, dogs, property, freedom and even life. Granted not without some due process for what that is worth. We know who is climbing uphill on that score.

The corporations control most people's bank accounts and income as well as control the food supply, shelter, utilities, and pretty much everything else. The vast majority of people can't pull a Ted Kaczynski and are forced to interact with these behemoths one way or another if they want to survive. Not being scared of something that directly influences and controls your survival is insane.

 

If the the government is screwing you at the behest of a corporation is it still the government that is screwing you.

That's like blaming guns for murder. I don't think I have to explain to you why that's dumb.

 

Shrink that to the size of something you can drown in a bucket and it can't be used against you by "evil corporations" or power mad evil leaders alike.

 

Then they will simply build another that can be used against you. Perhaps they'll call it "private security contractor" or something but they would certainly build something that can protect their interests with force.

[Guard Dog]

So we ask the bear to protect us from the lion, knowing it just means the bear will eat us rather than the lion. Or we run off the bear then the lion eats us. Geez, no wonder you drink. I'd be depressed too if I thought there was no escaping being someone's chow. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The solution is to kill both the bear and the lion and make it so no fledgling bear or lion is able to eat you.

[Zoraptor]

 

Can anyone think of a leader that was an evil SOB who was a good leader but in the end did more good than harm?

 

 

Winston Churchill. Pathological colonialist to the extent he'd likely be regarded as an outright white supremacist these days and at very best a White Man's Burden paternalist, advocated gassing Iraqi Marsh Arabs, starved millions of Bengalis, would have fought against India's independence tooth and nail if he hadn't been voted out of power, celebrated the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour and let Coventry be bombed. Overall, a genuinely crappy person leavened by some pithy comments and being the right man for the right job at the right time for his country. Even then (and much like Hitler and Stalin) most of his direct contributions to the conduct of war were disastrous- sending troops to Greece, Dieppe, in WW2; Gallipoli in WW1.

 

The only debatable bit is whether he was 'evil' instead of just not a nice guy.

[BruceVC]

I reject the notion that Winston Churchill was an evil SOB, he had some questionable views around how to maintain British rule but to compare him to Hitler and Stalin who are responsible for the deaths of millions is just an absurd and spurious comparison and no amount of specious Zora "anti-Western" logic is going to change the historical reality ..its like a discussion of Cecil Rhodes, very subjective.  And Churchill played a very key part in defeating the Axis powers and ensuring Britain never surrendered ..imagine a world if the Nazis had won...

 

What would Volo be calling people now " democratic SJW " or " liberal SJW "...because the " Nazi " insult would be considered a compliment  

 

But nowadays because people who commit genocide or real war crimes aren't ever generally considered good leaders we measure what a makes a good leader on different metrics 

 

For most people management of the economy is one of these key metrics, Putin had over a decade when the oil price was high to diversify the Russian economy. But he made the same mistake that countries like Brazil, Nigeria and  Venezuela did. His policies  of ensuring the Russian economy  was sustainable consisted of relying on commodities and a high oil price. Thats bad economic  insight and shows a bad leader, Putin was more concerned with ensuring the rise of Russian hegemony in the region 

 

But whats the point of having a strong military if your economy is in the doldrums and in the case of Russia a serious recession?

[Meshugger]

 

A modest proposal would be to try avoid creating the very preconditions that makes it possible for damaging leaders to emerge to begin with.

Not going to happen. Such conditions are created with a multitude of factors independent of each other and aren't going to be controlled.

 

 

I know that the removing the preconditions is in itself an ideal as changing the status-quo is essentially part of human nature, but i all i am asking for is trying not to add fuel to the fire: Like not actively engage in activities that result in societal destruction.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Meshugger

[Valsuelm]

 

Depends on the objective criteria of the discussion I guess. There is no questioning his quality as a human being (or lack thereof). He did lead his country out of ruin it's true. And after that right back into it. Can anyone think of a leader that was an evil SOB who was a good leader but in the end did more good than harm?

 

I know I'm drawing a blank.

All highly debatable but...Genghis Khan, Andrew Jackson, Stalin, Pope Julius II, Pope Alexander VI, and George Steinbrenner.

 

Not very debatable at all if one is sufficiently knowledgable.

 

Insofar who is the most evil on that list you can certainly remove Jackson, and probably Steinbrenner too. The Popes were colorful characters for certain, possibly were very evil, but given that evil is in the hearts of men it's not always knowable just how evil one is.

 

If one is to judge by the actions of person, Temujin most certainly claims the throne of most evil deeds. Stalin follows him up, yet competes with Mao and I'd say Churchill for most evil SOB 'leader' of the modern era. No one in recorded history compares to Temujin on the level of destruction and murder that not only he directly lead, but that followed for some generations in his wake.

 

For Genghis Khan and Stalin there absolutely was not more good than harm. In fact, there's relatively very little good that either did for the world, other than for themselves and a relative few around them. Pope Julius II for the most part has a legacy of good, as does Jackson. Pope Alexander VI has a mixed legacy, but the cons aren't even remotely on the same page as those of Temujin or Stalin.

 

That response to some low brow aside, to answer Guard Dog's question, no. I cannot think of a single leader from the ancient times to the modern that I'd say was definitely evil who in the end did more good than harm. Not even one that broke close to 50/50. If there was one, the good they did was die and early death before they gained infamy.

 

 

 

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Can anyone think of a leader that was an evil SOB who was a good leader but in the end did more good than harm?

 

 

Winston Churchill. Pathological colonialist to the extent he'd likely be regarded as an outright white supremacist these days and at very best a White Man's Burden paternalist, advocated gassing Iraqi Marsh Arabs, starved millions of Bengalis, would have fought against India's independence tooth and nail if he hadn't been voted out of power, celebrated the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour and let Coventry be bombed. Overall, a genuinely crappy person leavened by some pithy comments and being the right man for the right job at the right time for his country. Even then (and much like Hitler and Stalin) most of his direct contributions to the conduct of war were disastrous- sending troops to Greece, Dieppe, in WW2; Gallipoli in WW1.

 

The only debatable bit is whether he was 'evil' instead of just not a nice guy.

 

 

Your words for Churchill are much kinder than mine will ever be. He was definitely evil. Very probably the most evil leader of them all during his era, though he's got some great competition. In terms of evil deeds though, of his contemporaries only Stalin compares, however Stalin wasn't the leader who was the prime instigator of the most destructive single conflict recorded history has known. That said, Churchill didn't lead alone, and he had folks behind him. But he certainly was one sick and evil lying MFer in his own right. 

 

Almost all of the good he's ever said to have done is predicated of myth and lies, and almost all the evil he's ever done is whitewashed or ignored in pop history. That he's considered a hero by so many is a testament to how well oiled the propaganda machine so many are tuned into is, how truly nescient and/or ignorant so many are, as well possibly the best example there is of 'the winners write the history books'.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

New York Times delegate calculator shows virtual guarantee that Trump will get the required 1,237 needed to clinch the nomination.

 

Washington Post joins others in penning article about how the RNC has come to terms that Trump will be their man

 

In short, no brokered convention. The big question now, that likely won't be answered for some time yet is: Who is Trump's pick for VP.

 

 

On the Democratic front, the Times also shows Hillary as virtually guaranteed, which she has been for months, but only because of the 'super-delegates'. The big questions there are, will Bernie bend over for her, or will he actually make some real noise about the corruption? And, will he run independent?

My guess is no on both counts, but I hope otherwise.

[Meshugger]

In short, no brokered convention. The big question now, that likely won't be answered for some time yet is: Who is Trump's pick for VP.

 

 

Jim Webb.

 

While they do have things in common, the symbolical value of it and the resulting lulz would be awesome.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I reject the notion that Winston Churchill was an evil SOB, he had some questionable views around how to maintain British rule but to compare him to Hitler and Stalin who are responsible for the deaths of millions is just an absurd and spurious comparison and no amount of specious Zora "anti-Western" logic is going to change the historical reality

 

 

 

That's not how it works, Bruce. Did Churchill's policies result in the death and suffering of millions? Yes, they did, and therefore the comparison has legs. You can't just say "well they were brown people and history books don't mention it so it doesn't count and anyways the good outweighs the bad".

Edited April 29, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

 

 

I reject the notion that Winston Churchill was an evil SOB, he had some questionable views around how to maintain British rule but to compare him to Hitler and Stalin who are responsible for the deaths of millions is just an absurd and spurious comparison and no amount of specious Zora "anti-Western" logic is going to change the historical reality

 

 

 

That's not how it works, Bruce. Did Churchill's policies result in the death and suffering of millions? Yes, they did, and therefore the comparison has legs. You can't just say "well they were brown people and history books don't mention it so it doesn't count and anyways the good outweighs the bad".

 

What do you mean  I can't just say  "    something " ....I just said it didn't I ?  

 

Thats a joke by the way but of course you raise some valid points, I dont know much about how much Churchill is directly/indirectly  responsible for death of millions of Indians. I  need to do some research about this and get back to you but thanks for the link, its a good starting point for me 

[Zoraptor]

I see John Boehner has compared Cruz to Lucifer. Which seems a bit harsh on Lucifer.
 

In short, no brokered convention. The big question now, that likely won't be answered for some time yet is: Who is Trump's pick for VP.

At this point I'm more than half way expecting it to actually be Hulk Hogan. Or for Trump to hold a reality TV special to find his VP. It's about the only thing this campaign has missed so far.

[Namutree]

 

In short, no brokered convention. The big question now, that likely won't be answered for some time yet is: Who is Trump's pick for VP.

At this point I'm more than half way expecting it to actually be Hulk Hogan. Or for Trump to hold a reality TV special to find his VP. It's about the only thing this campaign has missed so far.

I'd rather have Hulk Hogan than Hillary as president. At least he'd respect privacy rights.