- A strong leader and a weak bureaucracy, so that your vote means something.
- A good constitution that puts hard limits on what they can do, no boiling the frog with freedom of speech restrictions like Canada, Australia, and The UK
So basically an elected dictator with a functioning kill switch. Not a parade of faceless, temporary, unimportant prime ministers and elections which don't matter.
> freedom of speech restrictions like Canada, Australia, and The UK
Unlike in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority?
(If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.)
> your vote means something. - A good constitution that puts hard limits on what they can do
Quite a lot of serious problems arise when voters want things that are ""unconstitutional"". What if the voters want speech restrictions? That's a big part of why they're implemented, public/media campaigning for them.
- A strong leader and a weak bureaucracy, so that your vote means something. - A good constitution that puts hard limits on what they can do, no boiling the frog with freedom of speech restrictions like Canada, Australia, and The UK
So basically an elected dictator with a functioning kill switch. Not a parade of faceless, temporary, unimportant prime ministers and elections which don't matter.
> freedom of speech restrictions like Canada, Australia, and The UK
Unlike in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority?
(If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.)
This was an incredibly stupid comment, for the following reasons:
- I never mentioned the US
- I am not from the US
- I wasn't talking about the US
You had some axe to grind and you ground it false pretexts.
Do better.
> your vote means something. - A good constitution that puts hard limits on what they can do
Quite a lot of serious problems arise when voters want things that are ""unconstitutional"". What if the voters want speech restrictions? That's a big part of why they're implemented, public/media campaigning for them.
So essentially Soviet democracy (at least as it was supposed to have worked in theory)?
How would you ensure that the strong leader wouldn't just bring in the Cheka as quickly as Lenin did?
We both have very different ideas of what "Soviet democracy" is :)
Theirs was a party democracy. Or are you referring to the actual soviets (workers councils) pre Bolshevik coup?
2 replies →