Leaders with a mandate are not necessarily a bad thing. With countries as with humans in small groups, it can sometimes prevent squabbling if there is one person who’s authorized to settle disputes.

However, just as with individual humans, when the consent of the governed goes away, it can start to become something really bad.

[–] Ethalis@jlai.lu 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Alright I'll do it

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Man, I come here to say me, but clearly first in best dressed so I'll concede to you

[–] ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

First is always better. Like all those YouTube comments that allude to earlier better times (we just didn’t know it).

FIRSTTT!!!1!

[–] veroxii@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago

Do you even own a suit?

[–] alykanas@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago

I feel like that’s not how democracy works

[–] juli@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If warcrimes without consequences and vetoing against peace resolutions to side with the invading/genocidal regime signs of a leader of the democratic world, then Russia seems to be next?

leader of the democratic world, my ass

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 0 points 2 months ago

Yeah. As with a lot of things, it makes a huge difference which aspect of the situation you're dealing with.

If the tiger is in your tent, facing out, safeguarding your peace and generally doing fair dealings with you, then you might come to see it as a good thing. Europe is talking about interacting with America from that point of view, and becoming shocked now that the tiger might be becoming dangerous.

If you're in the village where it goes at night to feed, then things look very different, and always have.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

The US isn't even a democracy, lol

[–] Zier@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago

I nominate a toasted strawberry pop tart! It will do so many great things compared to president felon.