You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Free_Radical 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

When a system is as corrupt as this, one autocratic man has a better chance of changing it.

Placing 100 people "in charge" will always fail because the majority will get corrupted and subvert the rest. Placing them one by one will, eventually, result in a candidate who'll flip the table - if he can survive the deep state.

0
0

[–] teatime 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Are you an American? This is the exact opposite ideology that America was founded on. As I've said before, you may like this president, but who's to say you'll like the next one. Perhaps Chelsea Clinton will take office some day. Will you still feel that one autocratic leader is what you want?

Too many people here are short-sighted and have shirked their duty to fight corruption because they think voting one man in office has exempt them from all responsibility. Don't be ignorant.

0
0

[–] Free_Radical 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm European.

Please re-read my comment. This is not about getting the best system in the long run. It's about here and now. Only an authoritarian or a revolution could, theoretically, fix this.

There's so much corruption, money and power in the system that only, say, 5% of people might have the fortitude to resist it. So: if you put 100 people in charge, 95 will get corrupted and the other 5 will end up powerless. The rot will continue to grow until the whole thing collapses and swallows the country (World?).

But if you put them individually you get a 5% chance (1 in 20) to get a "good" guy in charge who will then have the authority to clean up the swamp and re-set everything. Hopefully, he'd avoid putting his oldest son to inherit the kingdom but that's another story.

So don't accuse me of ignorance before listening to what I'm actually saying. OK?