What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[frunk]

They have managed ONE transfer in 50+ years

Two, actually.

[Berkut]

OK, sorry, two.

Even that is kind of debatable how "smooth" a transfer it has been. They seem to be killing one another quite a bit, and that is just what we know about.

[HVC]

Dictatorships suck, and i would hate to live in one, but it seems from a world perspective a long lasting temporarily stable dictatorship is preferential to a revolving door of tinpots and civil wars, isn't it?

[frunk]

Even that is kind of debatable how "smooth" a transfer it has been. They seem to be killing one another quite a bit, and that is just what we know about.

What's the point of being a dictator if you don't get to kill people arbitrarily?

[Berkut]

Dictatorships suck, and i would hate to live in one, but it seems from a world perspective a long lasting temporarily stable dictatorship is preferential to a revolving door of tinpots and civil wars, isn't it?

I am kind of torn on this.

On the one hand, the wars and such are terrible.

On the other hand, as something of a ideological believer in the superiority of the Western Liberal system, I am also a believer that it often requires violent change to get from shitty systems to better systems, since there are almost always entrenched power structures that must be removed.

The problem, of course, is that there is no guarantee that the outcome of some violent struggle will in fact be some semblance of a western democracy or democracy-like system. Sometimes you get them, sometimes you don't.

What we do know however is that there is no chance that a theocratic or dictatorial regime will get there without change, by definition.

I guess this is the basis of my somewhat tepid and begrudging support for things like the Arab Spring. Ideally, we would move towards more liberal and free societies through dialogue and gradual change, obviously. But when the Assads and Quadaffi's of the world don't allow that to be an option, the only option left is violence.

I do believe that eventually, people will insist on change. They may not get the change they want, and violence is always a crap shoot. It is entirely possible that the outcome might even be worse that the problem to begin with.

[The Brain]

Berkut sounds like Machiavelli.

Apparently there is a Broadway musical in the works for him.

Machiavelli, not Berkut.

[Caliga]

I do believe that eventually, people will insist on change. They may not get the change they want, and violence is always a crap shoot. It is entirely possible that the outcome might even be worse that the problem to begin with.

I believe The Who...



...wrote a song about this.

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Ed Anger]

Nerva came to power with the coup that ousted Domitian, but his regime was quickly stabilized when he adopted Trajan as his successor. The fact that he was obviously old and unlikely to live long helped.

But notice that Nerva represented the will of the Senate and the upper class plutocrats and his elevation was a helpful reminder to any Emperors that they still had to rule with the fat cats...for now anyway.

You turn me on talking about Rome.

[alfred russel]

True political stability it about being able to transfer power smoothly. Democracies, by and large, do this routinely and very regularly.

That is an epic shifting of the goalposts that I don't accept. Political stability goes beyond transfers of power, and defining "true political stability" as being about that is both very limiting and also stacks the deck in favor of democracies.

How can any evaluation of stability NOT include the transference of power? Isn't that the very definition of a political sytems stability - its ability to transfer power from one entity to another without the need for some kind of political violence?

And of course it stacks the deck in favor of democracies! There is a reason democracy is generally considered to be better than "brutal dictatorship"!

I give up. it is pointless and I don't have the time.

[CountDeMoney]

[You turn me on talking about Rome.

That explains your thing for Jersey chicks.

[Ed Anger]

[You turn me on talking about Rome.

That explains your thing for Jersey chicks.

FAKE NEWS

[Razgovory]

No, actually history teaches us that stability is quite possible in the long term, just not with dictatorships.

True political stability it about being able to transfer power smoothly. Democracies, by and large, do this routinely and very regularly.

Dictatorships have almost a 0% success rate doing this, which is why the maximum extent of their stability seems to mostly be linked to how long the particular dictator can stay alive, at best.

Democracies do stability to easily we transition power almost constantly in comparison.

What time frame are we using here? The Roman Empire seems to be one of the most stable successful states until the crisis of the third century, and yet it would qualify as a brutal dictatorship by our standards.

The last couple hundred years seems a bit more relevant than Ancient History.

Okay, how many countries have been avoided civil war, rebellion, violent overthrow from within or without in the last three hundred years?

[Valmy]

Canada.

[Zoupa]

Australia, New Zealand

[CountDeMoney]

[You turn me on talking about Rome.

That explains your thing for Jersey chicks.

FAKE NEWS

FAKE NAILS