This is especially interesting, because just about every country holds elections (free or not), even the hardest of dictatorships. Straight up not holding elections is rare these days.
This is especially interesting, because just about every country holds elections (free or not), even the hardest of dictatorships. Straight up not holding elections is rare these days.
Right? Even North Korea, China, Russia does. Even the smallest bit of dissent serves at least this one purpose, that they can't lie and say we all wanted this. People put their lives and freedom...
Right? Even North Korea, China, Russia does.
Nicaragua's last election in 2021 was widely disputed after Ortega detained opponents and business leaders and criminalized dissent.
Even the smallest bit of dissent serves at least this one purpose, that they can't lie and say we all wanted this. People put their lives and freedom at risk, and terrible tragedy some lost theirs, but this is an achievement, to force a tyrant to no longer be able to pretend. And it forces other countries trying to do business with them to also no longer be able to pretend.
Reading the comments from Ortega is bizarre. He's fighting a battle, trying to stop the opposition from seizing control of the country ... and apparently, he just realized that elections are one...
Reading the comments from Ortega is bizarre. He's fighting a battle, trying to stop the opposition from seizing control of the country ... and apparently, he just realized that elections are one way they could do that...
I think we should have two global rules that are enforced brutally: Nobody can be a leader for more than, say, 12 years in a row Nobody can be a leader after the age of, say, 70 And just simply...
I think we should have two global rules that are enforced brutally:
Nobody can be a leader for more than, say, 12 years in a row
Nobody can be a leader after the age of, say, 70
And just simply agree that if anyone fails in this, every country in the world wages war at them until the problem is fixed.
It won't fix all problems but will prevent a lot of them.
The UN isn’t a global government. Governments rule because they have a monopoly on violence. The UN does not have a monopoly on violence against the nations of the world and never has nor was...
The UN isn’t a global government. Governments rule because they have a monopoly on violence. The UN does not have a monopoly on violence against the nations of the world and never has nor was designed to do so.
Because it's a fantasy? "Man it sure would be nice" Idk I just think it's weird to argue with someone who's basically like "I want a perfect government system (IMO) and have an unrealistic...
Because it's a fantasy? "Man it sure would be nice"
Idk I just think it's weird to argue with someone who's basically like "I want a perfect government system (IMO) and have an unrealistic mechanism for that" that this is an unrealistic enforcement mechanism.
I get why you think it's a bad mechanism, I just don't think that's relevant to the "I wish" vibe. But just my opinion.
Just because you agree with it doesn’t make it non authoritarian. “Brutally enforced” rules is damn near the definition. I’m well aware that’s not what people really mean, and I’m also well aware...
Just because you agree with it doesn’t make it non authoritarian. “Brutally enforced” rules is damn near the definition.
I’m well aware that’s not what people really mean, and I’m also well aware “well it’s okay when I agree with it” is how a lot of atrocity and bad decisions are justified. Be passive aggressive about it if you want, but I think people should reflect better on their goals and how they want to achieve them
I didn't say I agreed with it and while I cannot tell which "you" you mean, either assumption is equally indicative of my point. Hence "I'm not going to convince you" and I don't particularly care...
I didn't say I agreed with it and while I cannot tell which "you" you mean, either assumption is equally indicative of my point. Hence "I'm not going to convince you" and I don't particularly care to.
But again, maybe I'm wrong and they literally want that. Doesn't seem like it, personally. Either way, still think this was the least charitable interpretation/assumption.
This is especially interesting, because just about every country holds elections (free or not), even the hardest of dictatorships. Straight up not holding elections is rare these days.
Right? Even North Korea, China, Russia does.
Even the smallest bit of dissent serves at least this one purpose, that they can't lie and say we all wanted this. People put their lives and freedom at risk, and terrible tragedy some lost theirs, but this is an achievement, to force a tyrant to no longer be able to pretend. And it forces other countries trying to do business with them to also no longer be able to pretend.
Reading the comments from Ortega is bizarre. He's fighting a battle, trying to stop the opposition from seizing control of the country ... and apparently, he just realized that elections are one way they could do that...
I think we should have two global rules that are enforced brutally:
Nobody can be a leader for more than, say, 12 years in a row
Nobody can be a leader after the age of, say, 70
And just simply agree that if anyone fails in this, every country in the world wages war at them until the problem is fixed.
It won't fix all problems but will prevent a lot of them.
Who enforces a “global” rule?
God?
UN. I do realize this is not a realistic wish at this time of human history.
The UN isn’t a global government. Governments rule because they have a monopoly on violence. The UN does not have a monopoly on violence against the nations of the world and never has nor was designed to do so.
And if the UN is made up of a majority of countries who disagree with this rule?
They realize it's an unrealistic expectation. Idk why you're expecting realism?
It's not about realism. It's about authority. How is this any different from some global colonialist government?
Because it's a fantasy? "Man it sure would be nice"
Idk I just think it's weird to argue with someone who's basically like "I want a perfect government system (IMO) and have an unrealistic mechanism for that" that this is an unrealistic enforcement mechanism.
I get why you think it's a bad mechanism, I just don't think that's relevant to the "I wish" vibe. But just my opinion.
Because it's weird to me how many people wish for authoritarian regimes?
sigh they're not. Or at the least you're jumping to a lot of conclusions to get there. But if you insist on that read, I'm not going to convince you.
Just because you agree with it doesn’t make it non authoritarian. “Brutally enforced” rules is damn near the definition.
I’m well aware that’s not what people really mean, and I’m also well aware “well it’s okay when I agree with it” is how a lot of atrocity and bad decisions are justified. Be passive aggressive about it if you want, but I think people should reflect better on their goals and how they want to achieve them
I didn't say I agreed with it and while I cannot tell which "you" you mean, either assumption is equally indicative of my point. Hence "I'm not going to convince you" and I don't particularly care to.
But again, maybe I'm wrong and they literally want that. Doesn't seem like it, personally. Either way, still think this was the least charitable interpretation/assumption.