El Salvador and Nayib Bukele Thread

[Thomas More]

This is like saying you believe Joe Biden has all of his mental faculties until you see an official diagnosis from a doctor.

Abides by future elections? The opposition doesn't have chance, and its by design. Most dictators run this same playbook. Is Maduro a dictator? Is Putin a dictator?

I think Bukele has more credibility than Biden. Biden was known to be senile and to have committed crimes. Bukele is known to have benefitted his country greatly.

He recently faced election in 2024 and won, which was already after he made the controversial choice to round up and imprison the gang members. He has a record of conducting fair elections, and has no record of abusing them. His way of running the country has already been validated by the voters.

It's understandable to suspect he might stifle the opposition in the future, in spite of his clean record. But as of now there's no track record of illegality like Biden had.

Also, I do not think Putin is a dictator. He has been elected and has the broad support of his nation. I think Maduro is a dictator. The Venezuelan elections were widely considered to be corrupt, and were not free and fair.

 

[Judoka]

A dictator is someone who rules by force. To sum up my argument, Bukele has threatened parliament with the army, consolidated power, intimidated journalists, and instituted a draconian lockdown during covid. He is now going to stay in office indefinitely.

Also, I do not think Putin is a dictator. He has been elected and has the broad support of his nation.

With all due respect this is incredibly naive. Putin doesn't allow for there to be a legitimate opposition party. Also you can have support and still be a dictator.

 

[mountainaire]

I like the term "strongman" to describe leaders like Bukele, Lukashenko, and others who remain in power and fight for their people against the wishes of the globohomosphere.

The term dictator has been poisoned and carries a negative connotation.

 

[Thomas More]

A dictator is someone who rules by force. To sum up my argument, Bukele has threatened parliament with the army, consolidated power, intimidated journalists, and instituted a draconian lockdown during covid. He is now going to stay in office indefinitely.



With all due respect this is incredibly naive. Putin doesn't allow for there to be a legitimate opposition party. Also you can have support and still be a dictator.

Ok, now I understand. I would say you can't be a dictator if you have the support of the people. If we use your definition, then I am in favor of dictators, as long as they have the support of the people and serve their country well.

 

[Northern Pilgrim]

A dictator is someone who rules by force. To sum up my argument, Bukele has threatened parliament with the army, consolidated power, intimidated journalists, and instituted a draconian lockdown during covid. He is now going to stay in office indefinitely.



With all due respect this is incredibly naive. Putin doesn't allow for there to be a legitimate opposition party. Also you can have support and still be a dictator.

So according to this logic, pretty much all western leaders are dictators no?
(They all use force, or threat thereof to maintain power)

How can a leader, according to modern notions of things, possibly be a dictator if they have over 51% support? That's what a democracy supposedly is. 'The people rule'

 

[Judoka]

Ok, now I understand. I would say you can't be a dictator if you have the support of the people.

I don't see how public support is relevant when classifying dictatorships. A dictator will rule with or without public support.

So according to this logic, pretty much all western leaders are dictators no?
(They all use force, or threat thereof to maintain power)

Term limits.

How can a leader, according to modern notions of things, possibly be a dictator if they have over 51% support? That's what a democracy supposedly is. 'The people rule'

Because the dictator rules over the people whether they like it or not.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

Thanks @Judoka

 

[Thomas More]

I don't see how public support is relevant when classifying dictatorships. A dictator will rule with or without public support.



Term limits.



Because the dictator rules over the people whether they like it or not.

You say he would rule even if he didn't have support, which you know in spite of him only ruling with overwhelming support.

I don't know that he would rule without support. It seems to me that he is most likely to continue earning support as he has been.

I normally try not to do so many back and forths, because I don't expect to change anyone's opinion after a certain point, but I've enjoyed this. I'm going to let this topic go now.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

A dictator is someone who rules by force.

Everyone rules by somekind of force. The world is brutal and not fair and we cannot do whatever we want when we want. We live within parameters, and those parameters will be enforced. What separates men like Bukele from men like Trump is that Bukele was raised in a world where he is unafraid to kill his enemy with his own hands. Weak, "democratic," "elected," "domesticated" men like Trump do not have the killer instinct themselves and send more dangerous men like Bukele out into the dark of night to do their dirty work for them. But make no mistake, in the real world, men must be killed tonight in an extrajudicial fashion without due process and without a vote. It doesn't sound like you're a man capable of doing that type of dirty work, and so it would be wise to refrain from criticizing those types of men who are.

A dictator will rule with or without public support.

To a point. If there is not enough public support a dictator will be overthrown either by his own failing mental capacities and ability to be nimble in thought and action or by coup d'etat.

Because the dictator rules over the people whether they like it or not.

Very difficult to sustain. "People" are like women, they don't really know what they want, and sometimes they need to be shown what they want and told what to do. Not everybody can be an effective decision maker, and poor decision makers shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

 

[Judoka]

I'm getting tired of discussing dictators so this will likely be my last post here for awhile.

What separates men like Bukele from men like Trump is that Bukele was raised in a world where he is unafraid to kill his enemy with his own hands. Weak, "democratic," "elected," "domesticated" men like Trump do not have the killer instinct themselves and send more dangerous men like Bukele out into the dark of night to do their dirty work for them.

I don't think he's killed anyone with his bare hands. Trump and Bukele are both leaders who delegate tasks.

It doesn't sound like you're a man capable of doing that type of dirty work, and so it would be wise to refrain from criticizing those types of men who are.

Let's not get personal.

To a point. If there is not enough public support a dictator will be overthrown either by his own failing mental capacities and ability to be nimble in thought and action or by coup d'etat.

This is completely false. Just look at Venezuela. A dictator needs control over the military and the money supply. In most cases the citizens don't have the right to protest nor the right to bare arms.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

Just look at Venezuela. A dictator needs control over the military and the money supply. In most cases the citizens don't have the right to protest nor the right to bare arms.

I'm not sure what's going on there. Some places are sh*tholes, some places are not. Why does Switzerland not have a dictator? Who knows? But the man with the most guns wins. Apparently in Venezuela the guys with all the guns back the "dictator." No man is an island unto himself, he has to have a "team" that supports him. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

And here is one reason to have a dictator... to stop young girls from selling their bodies to older men the day they turn 18: