StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Kaiser Wilhelm II. Then at least politics would be fun.

I nominate The Duchess, since she actually has a plan for dealing with a future of resource scarcity and climate change.

I nominate myself so I can live like a king afterwards and do some genuine good in the meantime.

weemadando wrote:There isn't.

But are you that much of an egomaniac?

Yes, and the personal gain is an obvious incentive to choose oneself. But it's not only a matter of that. Much of the difficulty of this question is knowing someone well enough to trust them with absolute power and even then worrying about the old saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is not just selecting someone to be president, as the OP suggests far more absolute power, with no checks and balances.

The issue with dictatorships is that usually they seem like a great idea if you're the dictator but the worst scenario if the dictator is someone you dislike given unchecked power. (The better average success of democracy is not quite so much because it is great in itself as because it tends to avoid the worst extremes, from factors including the public not voting too directly against their apparent best interest).

I think I can predict the degree to which I would abuse the power, a moderate degree which doesn't bother me personally ... with some interest in personal gain but not particular hatred or desire to have any group of people suffer. Since this much absolute power is so unprecedented, I can't say the same for a particular historical figure, people whom I really barely even know, only in the most indirect manner of reading about them, even past presidents.

Even aside from the abuse of power question, usually the views of historical figures on some subjects are apparent but not others. E.g. what would be the details of Von Braun's foreign policy, Thomas Edison's views on modern social issues, etc.? No idea.

One might choose a dictator who had similarly close to absolute power over some other country in the past and didn't abuse it too greatly. Then he or she could be predicted to hopefully do no worse when placed in an absolute power situation again. But none comes to mind as very desirable overall for the modern U.S.

Teddy Roosevelt.

Strikes me as a guy who will cut straight to the problem, whatever it may be.

Maybe Big Brother, as he seemed to get things done.

But in reality, I'd be tempted to run with FDR.

However, if he dies in office again, Abe Lincoln will take over just to annoy the south. If he dies in office again, then William Henry Harrison for pure lulz.

weemadando wrote:There isn't.

But are you that much of an egomaniac?

Well, if you feel there's good people alive today that would be decent at running a country, you could nominate yourself and order them to be your advisers.

Then let them run the country where you still have final say.

Teddy Roosevelt would be an interesting choice.

I think it would be interesting to throw in some figures from other governments to see how they would react. Frederick II would be interesting from that perspective, along with Otto von Bismarck.

If democracy fails, you can always count on Stalin.

I'm putting Abe Lincoln on the seat of power. He's negotiated the craziest politcal river the US experience could offer (literally two national parties dissolved and a new one formed during his political prime). Moreover if there is anyone who could finally forge a bit of trust and honest brokering amongst the abject seat of insanity that is DC it would be him.

I think for shit and giggles value you couldn't go past Mohammed the prophet.

The questions being raised in caves, seedy flats, royal palaces and jungle camps around the world:

"But if Mohammed is now leading the Great Satan, then does that make Mohammed the Greatest Satan? Or does that negate the Great Satan aspect?"

For a serious answer, I think Lincoln would be one of the best choices to lead the country.

Though for total lack of corruption, there can be no option other than Fred Rogers.

I'd nominate RedImperator, so I could be immensely powerful and kill my enemies but not actually have to make any important decisions.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:If democracy fails, you can always count on Stalin.

Holy shit, I was just going through the Pokey archive yesterday and the day before, too.

But I'd probably put Starglider in there and volunteer to be an orderly at the mandatory government neurosurgery outlets that crop up across the country.

I have to admit that my first answer was "myself" - at the end of the day the OP GIVES you absolute power, the only way you can shirk it is by not nominating anyone at all, and choosing yourself only extends that power. And how much do I trust another? I don't know people that well.

Having said that, if I was to choose anyone I would look for a career politician who wasn't famous and had never tried to be and yet had never sold out. There are quite a lot of people in the House of Commons in the UK who have done their jobs without trying to climb the ladder all that much.

Or a current leading Liberal Democrat from the UK but they don't go for nuke power so I am not sure how much they would safeguard the future.

I would like to add a PS stating how much I laughed at the idea of a cat, or Mohammed.

My comedy option is Caligula, the man was made, corrupt and insane and seeing what he would do with modern technology would be really fun if I was in space looking down.

Frankly, the most intelligent move is to nominate yourself for the position.

As it was pointed out, with this power it would be trivial to form your own group of numerous advisors to help you create policies and change for the better (I for one would probably find it both entertaining and productive to even hire a few members off the board whom I'd consider good advisors, particularily on subjects I'm not knowledgeable or experienced in).

The only excuse not to do so would be either laziness or apathy. That or the person chosen is really well known and trusted by the elector, which I have to say most of the examples here do not qualify as such (especially the historical ones).

I'd be tempted to nominate Marina, but she doesn't want the job. I'm also tempted to nominate myself, but I don't want the job either, I just want the US military to take over a third-world country so I can rule that instead. It's almost a toss-up between Abe and Teddy, but I lean Teddy thanks to his trust busting credentials. I would really like to be there when Roosevelt finds out about the lobbyists in Washington.

I nominate Mr. Coffee, who would rule America and the rest of the world with the People's Republic of FuckYeah Naval Awesomeness Fleet of Badassery Task Force Cuntpuncher at his side.

I'm torn between Teddy and LeMay.

It would have to be someone with an excellent record, and great political potential.

Therefore, I nominate Otto von Bismarck or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As soon as someone says "political giant of modern times", those two pop up in my mind.

Bismarck/Roosevoelt in 2008.

And to all the people voting for LeMay - you are truly anti-american.

Darth Hoth wrote:Kaiser Wilhelm II. Then at least politics would be fun.

"You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares. What has come over you that you are so completely given over to suspicions quite unworthy of a great nation? What more can I do than I have done? I declared with all the emphasis at my command, in my speech at Guildhall, that my heart is set upon peace, and that it is one of my dearest wishes to live on the best of terms with England. Have I ever been false to my word ? Falsehood and prevarication are alien to my nature. My actions ought to speak for themselves, but you listen not to them but to those who misinterpret and distort them. That is a personal insult which I feel and resent. To be forever misjudged, to have my repeated offers of friendship weighed and scrutinized with jealous, mistrustful eyes, taxes my patience severely. I have said time after time that I am a friend of England, and your press -- at least, a considerable section of it -- bids the people of England refuse my proffered hand and insinuates that the other holds a dagger. How can I convince a nation against its will?"

-His Majesty the Kaiser advancing the cause of Anglo-Germanic relations, as quoted by the Daily Telegraph on October 28, 1908.

Incidentally, I think the Kaiser and me would have gotten a long famously, because I happen to think that's an excellent appeal for friendship. The English, however, were deeply insulted.

J wrote:I nominate The Duchess, since she actually has a plan for dealing with a future of resource scarcity and climate change.

Except for the part where she refuses to take the job. Though hey, who knows, she might reconsider if it's presented as a moral duty for her sit in the Oval Office.

I nominate The Duchess, since she actually has a plan for dealing with a future of resource scarcity and climate change.

There's gotta be someone who has a plan that doesn't involve humanity being enslaved by the state.

Without a doubt his Majesty King Richard the Lion Heart.

Failing that John F. Kennedy!

Adrian Laguna wrote:Incidentally, I think the Kaiser and me would have gotten a long famously, because I happen to think that's an excellent appeal for friendship. The English, however, were deeply insulted.

It is not an excellent appeal for friendship, because that statement was not in accordance with german policy at that time.

If not him, then Patton, but my 1st choice is the above just cause it's always neater to see an older person react to the changes and conditions the world would be in in the early 21st century.

More on Patton though, the man gains so much fame for being a great commander of armored columns yet he was very forward looking: a biography (of a sorts, it was a book on his principles of leadership) of his had several speeches the author remembered him giving to his 1st Armored Corps about how in his day as a young LT, the tank corps was the wave of the future, but that similarly at the moment, the US Army Air Force and airpower were what the wave of the future was.

I would fully expect him to soak in all the knowledge of the world and his new U.S. military and then push forward a sensible modernization strategy, he'd probably have the neocon brush-war mindset pissing up a rope right quick.