Priceless in a really sad way.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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.

Qdeathstar: Democracy is a popularity contest.

GoForSmoke: 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.

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?

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...

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.

Qdeathstar: 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.

Qdeathstar: I don’t like/agree with welfare for all

I'm not questioning your personal opinion but this seems to be a common attitude in the USA which is not mirrored at all in the UK or European Union. To my mind it makes the USA seem mean and heartless - especially as it is such a rich nation.

...R

It’s mean and heartless to demand I give up what I’ve earned.

Robin2: I'm not questioning your personal opinion but this seems to be a common attitude in the USA which is not mirrored at all in the UK or European Union. To my mind it makes the USA seem mean and heartless - especially as it is such a rich nation.

...R

The world is mean and heartless by nature. To imagine that there will ever be a society of any sort where some don't have it better than others is to be completely naive of human nature.

Delta_G: To imagine that there will ever be a society of any sort where some don't have it better than others is to be completely naive of human nature.

There are haves and have-nots on this side of the Atlantic too. We just try to be a bit kinder to people in poor circumstances.

...R

Delta_G: The world is mean and heartless by nature. To imagine that there will ever be a society of any sort where some don't have it better than others is to be completely naive of human nature.

That is true. However banding together and providing a basic safety net for all makes sense, that is what welfare is. Anybody can fall ill or get injured.

There is a growing divide between rich and poor in the "developed" nations and that is not good. There is also the up and coming issue of automation and AI. That is why experiments have been taking place in various places with "universal income" to see what happens if everybody gets a basic salary as a right. There is nothing to stop them topping it up though.

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.

+1 but in the meantime the exra-special alternate-reality spoiled yet desperate rich brat has the football.

Did you see the video there at the UN? Zelensky's reaction as he heard the news, from smile to shock so fast, LOL! How soon no more Ukraine, huh?

Subsidizing industries somehow isn't wealth redistribution either.

GoForSmoke: Subsidizing industries somehow isn't wealth redistribution either.

Are you saying Universal Income is a subsidy to industries?

ardly: Are you saying Universal Income is a subsidy to industries?

I suspect @GoForSmoke was trying to point out that US politicians are perfectly happy to re-distribute taxpayers' wealth to industry yet strangely reluctant to re-distribute wealth to help the needy in society.

But I may be wrong.

...R

Robin2: I suspect @GoForSmoke was trying to point out that US politicians are perfectly happy to re-distribute taxpayers' wealth to industry yet strangely reluctant to re-distribute wealth to help the needy in society.

But I may be wrong.

...R

I would agree with that. Some politicians might feel that helping industry supports jobs. However we are now seeing that companies are not paying their taxes, a small number of people are benefiting in a hugely disproportionate way from profits and there is a real risk of automation displacing a significant part of the population from work. I think we are long way from AI being truly intelligent but quite close to AI being able to take over a lot of jobs.