You know why?
Because with a dictator – THERE’S THE PROBLEM. Its this one idiot who we can point to. They are the problem.
When it’s a democracy – well, that’s not so easy is it? There’s all the idiots in elected positions. Idiots who got voted in by the population or at least some portion of it.
And then you have to face how complicated it all is. Everyone is the problem. The system is a complicated pile of problems.
Can’t get rid of democracy/republic. That’s the only thing we can all agree on. It doesn’t work really super well, but it’s generally regarded as being a good thing.
Can’t get elected officials to change laws that will be a disadvantage to said elected officials. That a nonstarter for obvious reasons.
Can’t convince other members of the population that their particular choice of elected person is an idiot.
All of it grinds to a halt and nothing happens on a regular basis while either a brawl or a standoff is going on. Which does at least make good theater.
But in the meantime stupid amounts of money being wasted on pointless bridges to nowhere or entire populations being poisoned or war happens.
So I fantasize about a nice simple dictatorship. Where the problem is nicely contained in that one person. So easily explained. So thoroughly eliminated when that person is eliminated. AND once that ugly dictator problem is eliminated, you get to start with a clean slate re-do of the basics in the way a proper democracy / republic should work.
It all looks good on paper. If you ignore all the horrors that are associated with most dictatorships.
Sigh. I suppose ignoring that would be bad.
It's a Thought 
A benevolent dictatorship!
LikeLike
Has one EVER existed? It seems ideal, but I can’t imagine a human who, when given that much power, wouldn’t then become an insufferable asshole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I lived in a state that was dominated by a family that found it’s wealth centuries ago. As a result they owned most of the parks and recreation (and a part of the government). The residents always called it a benevolent dictatorship. The arts and recreation was taken care of. There were fabulous walking paths. First class hospitals. Budget was balanced every year. I wonder if it’s still like that. We spend so much $$ on campaigning and various strategies that could go to world peace, hunger and curing disease.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A democracy requires and informed electorate. Our forefathers saw the need for working press to make them informed. Yesterday’s yet another travesty by The Donald of accusation of a press asking questions, shows the need for the press and an informed society. His lack of veracity as a candidate is readily apparent in his history and it is not hard to find. He has only shown his warts moreso in public the past year.
There were two big news stories about Trump yesterday. He blasted the press for asking questions of where the donations were going, yet he fails to mention that little if any money had been donated to veterans following the event earlier this year, until The Washington Post brought attention to this last week. As a result, funding for charities appeared. Now, remind me Mr. Trump why the press cannot ask questions?
The second is more damning in the documents released by one of three court cases against Trump and Trump University for alleged misrepresentation. The documents show a microcosm of his ways of exploiting people for money which has been his modus operandi. In addition to insulting the judge who is Latin American, he said these depositions show people out to get him.
But, here is the punch line. These folks have testified under oath, so if they lied they could go to jail. They likely take an oath more seriously than this presidential candidate whose record for lying on the campaign trail, as measured by two nonpartisan fact checking organizations, is over 75%. He, of course, says this is the liberal media.
As an independent, former Republican voter (left in 2006), the media has given this man a hall pass for a long time. He should have been asked these questions repeatedly all along. Mr. Trump, you say global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese to steal our jobs, yet why did your company make a formal request of the Irish government for permission to build a sea wall around your coastal golf course due to rising sea levels from climate change? – that would be a good question.
I recognize your post is in gest, but we do not need someone like this man leading our country given his narcissistic history and thin-skin. If you challenge him, he crushes you. The many questions still exist, though.
If Clinton wins the nomination, she is imperfect, but the criticism of her is fair and unfair. The problem is people don’t know what has been discredited as smear campaign that the GOP has used since the 1990s and what is legit, such as questions around her email use. Initial questions on Benghazi were fair, but as Speaker wannabe Kevin McCarthy let out of the bag, the continuation of eight hearings was designed to discredit her more than find any remaining truths. She is far more qualified to be president than this the GOP candidate as noted by foreign leaders, who are fairly outspoken in criticism of him.
If Sanders wins the nomination, he will have a hard time getting his ideas past the GOP in Congress, but he has a much better track record of telling the truth. Either way, he or Clinton are far better candidates than the GOP nominee who has already endangered our country with his comments per five retired generals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He is not qualified by experience, skill or temperament got the job of president. But our system is so messed up that he could still become president.
He is the epitome of the quote by Douglas Adams. “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
correction to previous comment “for the job of president”, not “got the job.”
LikeLike
Agreed on all counts. His candidacy should have never gotten this far. The media must continue to ask him legitimate questions. And, when he evades them ask them again. He cannot take criticism, so he may take his sand toys and go home.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, welcome to the same dilemma that the founders of the country were faced with.
They were well aware of the problems this type of government could have, such as a general public that was easily manipulated by rumor, misinformation and ignorance. That’s why they didn’t trust the general public to actually run the country and instead of a democracy we ended up with a republic.
Originally the right to vote was severely restricted, and the president was not directly elected but was instead appointed by the Congress, and one of the reasons why was the fear the public could be easily manipulated into making decisions that were contrary to the public good.
(Aside: Once upon a time in a poly-sci class I was in, someone commented that the government seemed to have been crafted by a bunch of brain damaged drunks. The professor said that was because they pretty much were exactly that. They drank a LOT back then. We have the bills from some of the booze ups the founding fathers attended and it reads like a frat house keg party. Add in the fact that they drank out of pewter cups with a high concentration of lead and, well, you get the idea…)
So we ended up with a representative republic instead of an actual democracy, in the hopes that the elected representatives would be of above average intelligence and well informed, and be of above average intelligence.
The problem is, of course, that the whole system relies on having an intelligent, well informed, well educated group of voters, who realize that it is their duty to make informed, thoughtful decisions when they vote. Unfortunately we now have a media that is far more interested in rumor, scare mongering, hype and outright lying to the public to make money, an electoral system that has been shamelessly manipulated to favor one party or the other over the years, and a large number of voters who can’t be bothered to actually vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person