If you could enact 3 US policy changes what would they be?

submitted by bug-in-recovery from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

That person obviously needs enough support from people who want to get rid of the propaganda to be able to lead that kind of society.

Only a minority of people control government. If you're going the democratic route, then maybe, it's important to use the masses. But in some societies, a plurality is not actually needed to win (i.e you can lose the popular vote but win more seats to still be elected).

But I don't actually believe a democratic victory is necessary to hold power. Especially as they can be installed or use bribes.

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Masses, nobility, oligarchy, whichever. They have to be influential enough in whatever applicable criteria to promote governmental, political, and cultural change. My point is that no one is going to elect/appoint/crown any man that has great ideas but no support.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Revolutions bypass any requirements that says you need a popular idea to rule.

It certainly explains why rulers in Africa stay in power for almost forever. It's only when the second in command gets jealous, they order the King/President to get whacked and install themselves next.

And to be honest, the problem with politics is running on a platform of mass acceptance. That's how you get liberalism. If you're looking to defeat drag queens/globohomo, then you have to run someone who can speak uncomfortable truths.

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Even during a revolution whoever is leading it still needs support.

Also, who do you think are the foot soldiers in those revolutions? They aren't usually the smartest people.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If support mattered, why was Stalin able to purge his own government, even those who were loyal to him, but still stayed in power?

He was smart but in a twisted way, and he used his a god-like image to keep everyone fearful, so he wouldn't be overthrown easily.

Also, who do you think are the foot soldiers in those revolutions? They aren't usually the smartest people.

As long as they get bread, they stay in line. If they tried to revolt, they get court martialed or literally executed.

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You tell me. Why was Stalin able to purge his own government but still stayed in power? I'd bet it was because he had enough power and support to get away with it.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

His support was based on brainwashing his population and using fear tactics so anyone who criticized Stalin was sentenced to Gulag.

So in a way, it was completely artificial or forced why people loved him.

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Brainwashed or no, people still had to believe in Stalin to enforce his decrees and maintain his gulags.