Priceless in a really sad way.

[Qdeathstar]

Xi is very popular as well. No need to be in denial about the fall of western civilization folks, its happening.  It had a good run.

[Qdeathstar]

great leaders are great leaders because people follow them. If people don't follow them they aren't leaders. What criteria would you use besides popularity?

Democracy is a popularity contest.

[GoForSmoke]

Great leaders do great things and the crap leaders take their country into repression and ruin.

BTW, just how well is the Russian stock market doing these days?

Putin is popular wherever Putin controls the polls and the government to jail those who say different.

In the west we have dissent because we allow people the right to think and say what Russia, China, etc, do not.

I can understand Russians not being able to understand what freedom is except in vague dreams. It'd be something like being a strict religious nut unable to understand what dancing and smiling are about yet are able to forgive their pastor for being caught with a hooker.

[Robin2]

yet are able to forgive their pastor for being caught with a hooker.

Well ... we all know it was all HER fault. 

...R

[GoForSmoke]

In any case I thought that the premise of "popular" meaning "better" or "great" needed a little reductio ad absurdum.

That includes the premise that repressed people give accurate answers. Centuries ago, swordpoint conversions made Islam popular and for a fact all those who disagreed were killed leaving only "positive" responses.

Who wants to live in a world run by sociopaths? Hail Putin and vote Trump to put everyone in line!

[Qdeathstar]

Popular doesn't mean great. Popular means great leader. There's a huge difference.

Also, the popularity polls i am referring are polls conducted by third parties (gallup, for instance) and therefore aren't as influenced by strong arming.  I think you should research this a bit more. You are allowing your personal beliefs to become fact.

Although, if you control the message you do control perception. Personally, maybe that's not a bad thing. All of our congress have polls up their ass afraid to move.


In any case, you never answered the question.

great leaders are great leaders because people follow them. If people don't follow them they aren't leaders. What criteria would you use besides popularity?

[ardly]

Popular doesn't mean great. Popular means great leader. There's a huge difference.

Also, the popularity polls i am referring are polls conducted by third parties (gallup, for instance) and therefore aren't as influenced by strong arming.  I think you should research this a bit more. You are allowing your personal beliefs to become fact.

Although, if you control the message you do control perception. Personally, maybe that's not a bad thing. All of our congress have polls up their ass afraid to move.


In any case, you never answered the question.

great leaders are great leaders because people follow them. If people don't follow them they aren't leaders. What criteria would you use besides popularity?

I think that people can be leaders, and be popular leaders, without being great.
It is really only when you look back at what a leader achieved that you can decide if they were great.
I truly great leader might follow a very unpopular course of action and be kicked out but history might show them to have been right.
With Climate Change looming we are in need of great leaders, what they do might well not be popular.

[Henry_Best]

If you use popularity as a measure of greatness then the Kim family and Robert Mugabe were/are great leaders.

[Qdeathstar]

If they aren't popular leaders they won't be great leaders for long.

[GoForSmoke]

And yet Hillary Clinton won the popular US vote in 2016 by more than 1 million votes by REGISTERED voters.

Oh yeah, Russia has independent polling! And I am a ninja panda.

[Delta_G]

Democracy is a popularity contest.

And yet Hillary Clinton won the popular US vote in 2016 by more than 1 million votes by REGISTERED voters.

And fortunately, the US is NOT a democracy.  It's a representative republic.  It's not one big popularity contest, but a whole bunch of little popularity contests put together in a weighted way. 

[GoForSmoke]

She won the DNC primary with a weighted way too, superdelegates for when people can't be trusted to make the right choice. What she did to Sanders...

But she was the lesser bad choice and would have an obstructionist Congress.

She would not be doing favors for nothing with Putin, Kim or Xi. She would not be dismantling the government root and branch as able.

What he said he did is a crime all by itself. Does he get to squawk and walk? Does his corrupt admin get to keep on functioning?

[Qdeathstar]

I think Syria would have been way worse if Clinton was in office.  Iran would be better though. NK about the same as it is now, mainly slightly worse.

I know Trump doesn't have anything to show for his bluster over China trade, but with Clinton it would have never been brought up at all...

[Qdeathstar]

#opinions


I personally have no issues with him calling Ukraine or Russia and getting a little extra help... but I'm not voting for him because he is an ineffective leader.  Even when his party controlled the entire government he was too busy trolling dead men to get anything done.

Warren seems like the only adult running.  I don't like/agree with welfare for all but not everything in the primary doesn't make it to the general election much less through Congress.

[Delta_G]

Warren seems like the only adult running.

While I definitely don't agree with her on most policies, I can definitely agree with this statement.