Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[The Oracle]

And DF Don trumpets Putins 82% approval rating, which is obviously fabricated too. Unreal.

[iam416]

I find this whole thing remarkably silly, but at the time it was said I wondered what is a "better" leader? How is that judged? Is it judged morally? Is it judged on outcomes? What's the right mix? Is Ghenghis Khan a better leader than Neville Chamberlain? Well, I suppose that depends. It sounds to me like SLF would say Chamberlain because he was a nicer guy.

Putin is despicable. There's no comparison. There might be a comparison, however, if the question is whether he's advanced Russian interests more than Obama has advanced American interests. I don't think he has, but that's not a ludicrous question.

That said, I'm fully on board with Jonah Goldberg lashing Trump's preposterous moral equivalence: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...s-once-opposed

[Wild Hoss]

Well, admittedly, its easier to advance interests when people have to do what you say or you send them off to the gulag.

[iam416]

Meh, whatever.

I think it could be an interesting question to ponder. For example, was Stalin a better leader than, say, Herbert Hoover? Apparently the correct answer is Hoover by a mile -- he didn't have millions executed. Fair enough.

I guess it interests only me.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Well. I would argue that murdering ones own people should disqualify anyone from being considered a great leader. Heck, I'd even say GW Bush was a better leader than Stalin or Mao.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Meh, whatever.

I think it could be an interesting question to ponder. For example, was Stalin a better leader than, say, Herbert Hoover? Apparently the correct answer is Hoover by a mile -- he didn't have millions executed. Fair enough.

I guess it interests only me.

Are you kidding? Is there a question in your mind about that? I am really shocked that the Republican Party is so ok with killing political opposition.

If killing people is good leadership, why the pearl clutching about emails?

[Wild Hoss]

I guess it interests only me.

Or maybe its just an idiotic premise. Something to ponder.

[Wild Hoss]

Heck, I'd even say GW Bush was a better leader than Stalin or Mao.

Jeez...I'm an accredited W-basher, but even I wouldn't qualify that comparison with a "Heck". :-D

[THE_WIZARD_]

Did you eat paint chips as a child?

[iam416]

Are you kidding? Is there a question in your mind about that? I am really shocked that the Republican Party is so ok with killing political opposition.

Your limitless ability to falsely characterize is stunning.

Anyway, my apologies for raising the issue.

Morality is the ultimate defining characteristic of leadership. Outcomes only matter if the morality is the same. I can get behind that.

[SeattleLionsFan]

No. You should absolutely raise the issue. Next up, Pol Pot v. Millard Fillmore. Then we can get to Idi Amin v Jimmy Carter. So tell me what made Pol Pot such a great leader?

[SeattleLionsFan]

For the record, I understand your point. It's a stupid point When you are talking about people like Putin. He's no different than Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il except in skin tone and resources. Yes, outcomes matter. But so do methods. Killing your own people and acting as a two bit dictator precludes you from being a "great leader". At least it has throughout the history of the United States. At least, it used to.

[iam416]

I think Pol Pot sucked. I think Idi Amin sucked. I think Stalin was a horrendous motherfucker, but I'm not sure the Russians beat the Germans w/o him. I also think Ghenghis Khan was a pretty spectacular leader.

Anywho. That's that.

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU

[Hannibal]

LOL at the forum Liberals suddenly finding a dislike of brutal dictators and Americans who praise them.

Oh, the irony.