***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Are we seriously going to try to predict what an authoritarian government established by the modern Democratic Party would look like? Or even suggest that somehow they’d be some deterministic or even somewhat prdictable function of current sitting politicians?
What are you even talking about? Honestly

I am not trying to predict anything.

mplsdunk mplsdunk he didn't want a neoliberal. I said neoliberal is being deployed as a vague term that can mean anything. He brought up old Democrats, I said that's is not what neoliberal means. Then you come along with this theory of what he could have meant.

I am not asking you to predict ****. If you are piggybacking off of dudes' comment about a specific type of Democrat, then I am simply asking you to name one.

The fact you took it in this weird direction tells me you can't, but needed away to continue with debate



I think his broader point is that given the history of the Democratic Party, including its (temporary?) embrace of some neo-liberal ideas in the 90’s, he doesn’t think they can be entrusted to be good dictators. Or at least that’s my perhaps charitable reading of his argument.

My issue was about the use of the word neoliberal, throughout our exchanges he changed the meaning of the word to suit his argument. That is my issue

He can not trust the Democratic Party, he can not trust anyone he likes. Didn't take issue with him not trusting a Democratic dictator. Hell I called the idea of having any kind of one wrongheaded.

I compared the use of neoliberal among leftist with woke among conservatives. At the end of the day it is just being deployed as an insult. But that is a separate issue than people have a distrust of another group


And I find little to debate there.
So why the hell did you inject yourself?
 
Last edited:
Dictatorship is a bad idea but I do have the thought if I were to create some sort of safe, progressive community or bubble I would need some control to stop detractors.
 
To try to clarify what looked like a miscommunication.

I’m not sure how that merited the energy you just brought. Have a nice evening, Rusty.
There was no miscommunication

You accused me of doing something I was not doing. So what, you didn't like the tone of used to call BS? I don't care.

Thanks. Have an average rest of yours
 
To try to clarify what looked like a miscommunication.

I’m not sure how that merited the energy you just brought. Have a nice evening, Rusty.
Didn't read most of the posts so don't know what transpired before, but saw this and thought Rusty was concerned about your drug habit.
 
I hate it when the adults fight.
giphy.gif


Well not everybody but ya know
 
Well, this just inspired me to learn about Nkrumah at the Wiki level. Very interesting.

I might argue that the military coup that ended his benevolent dictatorship and led to a pretty dark few decades would have been less successful against a truly democratic government, but that just seems like endless hypotheticals, so I guess, yeah… Ghana.
The real interesting fact here is that it's not Nkrumah's rule that brought about a country that respects democratic norms: it was Jerry Rawlings'.

He took power and relinquished it twice without trying to circumvent the democratic process. He is one of the few African dictators (maybe the only one, but I can't confirm) who lived free in his country after his regime ended.
 
Ghana.

However, it is the proverbial exception that proves the rule when it comes to benevolent dictators.

eh having a somewhat benevolent dictator can be better relative to other illiberal peer countries see Hati vs DR

but if as the cold war ended they discovered massive amount of oil in Ghana
whatever benevolence that existed would have sharply declined.
 
This might be the one of the single dumbest ideas to ever be proposed
 
Back
Top Bottom