2018 - Worst World Leaders Olympics [International Posters Unite!]

[RockstarChris]

I recently saw a segment on some comedy show about the sorry state of world leadership, particularly in the West, and thought this would be a fun topic to get together, Sherbros of the world, and discuss how fucking awful our political representatives are.

Of course, much of this discussion is relative to the countries and governments in which the leaders operate (Trudeaus of the world having a much harder curve than Al Sauds). But, nevertheless, let's discuss. And if you have any categories I am leaving out, or have a world leader that's not getting enough love, do speak up. I'm no international politics expert, so I'm really only privy to the world stage big hitters.



Most Oppressive (citizens)

1. Kim Jong-Un (North Korea)
2. Bashar al-Assad (Syria)
3a. Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (Saudi Arabia)
3b. Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines)


Most Oppressive (political opponents) (democracies)

1. Vladimir Putin (Russia)
2. Michel Temer (Brazil)
3a. Nicolas Maduro (Venezuela)
3b. Recep Erdogan (Turkey)


Most Antagonist to the Free Press

1. Kim Jong-Un (North Korea)
2. Recep Erdogan (Turkey)
3a. Donald Trump (United States)
3b. Vladimir Putin (Russia)


Most Corrupt

1. Vladimir Putin (Russia)
2. Michel Temer (Brazil)
3a. Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel)
3b. Donald Trump (United States)
3c. Nicolas Maduro (Venezuela)


Least Popular

1. Michel Temer (Brazil)
2. Jacob Zuma (South Africa)
3. Uhuru Kenyatta (Kenya)


Most Incompetent

1. Donald Trump (United States)
2. Theresa May (United Kingdom)
3. Nicolas Maduro (Venezuela)


Most Embarrassing
1. Donald Trump (United States)
2. Theresa May (United Kingdom)
3. Justin Trudeau (Canada)


Most Unstable

1. Aung San Suu Kyi (Burma)
2. Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines)
3. Donald Trump (United States)


Most warmongering

1. Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (Saudi Arabia)
2. Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel)
3. Donald Trump (United States)

Most unsightly

1. Angela Merkel (Germany) (had to think up a category for her to be in)
2. Donald Trump (UK)
3. Kim Jong-Un (North Korea)

Most disappointing

1. Aung San Suu Kyi (Burma)
2. Emmanuel Macron (France)
3. Justin Trudeau (Canada)





Tallying up the votes, it seems that by my estimations, narrowly beating out Michel Temer (Brazil), Recep Erdogan (Turkey), and Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (Saudi Arabia), our United States' very own Donald J. Trump is the shittiest leader of 2018.

Where is China?

 

[sub_thug]

So if Assad had stepped down the Syria would be a liberal democracy at this point, there would be no war, oppression and death? There would had been no backlash against religious minorities?

*Looks at Libya whose population is less radical than Syria*

You're going to totally give Assad a pass for his involvement in his own civil war where he is the leader of the country? Dude, that's weak.

 

[Trotsky]

Where is China?

I think the international critical consensus is that Xi has been the single most effective world leader in this era.

I originally had him for "antagonism of free press," but I narrowed it to the top three, since "3a, 3b, 3c, etc." looks kinda tacky.

I interpreted that to mean that he himself was an unstable man, which he seems to be. What little comes out of the DPRK suggests that KJU has some form of mental illness, as he is prone to flying off the handle and assassinating his advisers (more so than his father was). I don't think you can really call a man like that more stable than the POTUS. I'm not saying that you have to like the guy, but he hasn't executed any of his advisers yet.

He's a brutal dictator. But none of that yields the inference of instability or unpredictability, really.

I guess I just imagined those nuclear tests then, right? Because I would call those acts of aggression. The DPRK has a long history of saber-rattling.

Huh? That was in response to Assad. You said Assad should be listed for warmongering.

The list is very thinly veiled mechanism for voicing your distaste for Trump in order to call him the Worst Leader in the World. Like I said, feel free not to like him. Vote for whoever runs against him in 2020, should you decide to do so. But don't sit there and tell us that you're being objective when you clearly have ulterior motives for writing this.

I don't think anyone here is unknowing of my (and most's) opinion of Trump, but this was also to mine our entire community's distaste with their leaders. Also, I dislike Temer more than Trump.

I did try my absolute best to be objective on my personal lists, which is why I failed to include Trump on some that he could have made a great case on.

 

[HomerThompson]

I interpreted that to mean that he himself was an unstable man, which he seems to be. What little comes out of the DPRK suggests that KJU has some form of mental illness, as he is prone to flying off the handle and assassinating his advisers (more so than his father was). I don't think you can really call a man like that more stable than the POTUS. I'm not saying that you have to like the guy, but he hasn't executed any of his advisers yet.


I guess I just imagined those nuclear tests then, right? Because I would call those acts of aggression. The DPRK has a long history of saber-rattling.


He hasn't pushed us towards a war with Iran. There are very few people talking about armed conflict with Iran. The last operation against the Iranians was the whole Stuxnet thing, and those were actions taken under the Bush and Obama Administrations. Tensions have escalated with the DPRK, but it also seems to be working. What I am hoping is that a hard line and a policy of non-appeasement will bring them to the negotiating table. The world will be a better and safer place if we can all get to the negotiating table AND the North Koreans are willing to dismantle their nuclear program.


The list is very thinly veiled mechanism for voicing your distaste for Trump in order to call him the Worst Leader in the World. Like I said, feel free not to like him. Vote for whoever runs against him in 2020, should you decide to do so. But don't sit there and tell us that you're being objective when you clearly have ulterior motives for writing this.

Assad tested nukes?

 

[sub_thug]

Assad tested nukes?

I thought he was referring to Kim. That's my bad there.

 

[Gregolian]

Edited to include:

Most Unsightly

Most Disappointing

Trudeau and May for that second one.

Trump and his stupid fucking hair for the first

 

[TheGreatA]

So if Assad had stepped down the Syria would be a liberal democracy at this point, there would be no war, oppression and death? There would had been no backlash against religious minorities?

*Looks at Libya whose population is less radical than Syria*

I'm not sure if Assad is even that unwilling to step down. Based on his history it's obvious that he never wanted the job. He inherited it, accidentally.

The problem with stepping down from power in Syria, is that he would likely be Gaddafi'd by the next government, and his family and friends would be purged alongside with him. So there has never been a choice to peacefully transition power to someone else.

Part of that is his own fault (and the fault of his ancestors), but part of that is simply the law of the land. A cornered man, without choices, is going to fight back like an animal. A lot of the people who fight for Assad, know fully well that they don't have a future without Assad. The next government would punish anyone associated with the old one, and nothing would change. The previous government would become the new oppressed, anti-government.

If the West truly wants to get rid of these dictators, then they have to be more rational and capable of seeing things from their perspective as well. Can we really expect these people to give up their positions, after seeing how Gaddafi and Saddam went out? Humiliated, degraded, whole families wiped out. No matter how brutal they were, all it does, is encourage the next one to be even more brutal, in order to stay in charge. So that he won't have to see everything that he built, crumble into dust. Literally everything, as we saw in Libya.

 

[Trotsky]

Trudeau and May for that second one.

Trump and his stupid fucking hair for the first

lol I removed Trump from the latter and lowered him in the former to minimize ruffled feathers.

May has been a hlarious disappointment, but I also feel kind of bad for her. Her party, made up of dickheads like Boris Johnson who actually spearheaded Brexit only to dip out when asked to be held accountable, has really hung her out to dry.

 

[Andy Capp]

Yeah. It's like complaining that an anti-(racial) discrimination law restricts free speech because it makes dropping the n-bomb at work a bad idea.

This deliberate mis-representation makes me wonder what else they've been complaining about that's based upon bs.

 

[Trotsky]

I'm not sure if Assad is even that unwilling to step down. Based on his history it's obvious that he never wanted the job. He inherited it, accidentally.

The problem with stepping down from power in Syria, is that he would likely be Gaddafi'd by the next government, and his family and friends would be purged alongside with him. So there has never been a choice to peacefully transition power to someone else.

Part of that is his own fault (and the fault of his ancestors), but part of that is simply the law of the land. A cornered man, without choices, is going to fight back like an animal. A lot of the people who fight for Assad, know fully well that they don't have a future without Assad. The next government would punish anyone associated with the old one, and nothing would change. The previous government would become the new oppressed, anti-government.

If the West truly wants to get rid of these dictators, then they have to be more rational and capable of seeing things from their perspective as well. Can we really expect these people to give up their positions, after seeing how Gaddafi and Saddam went out? Humiliated, degraded, whole families wiped out. No matter how brutal they were, all it does, is encourage the next one to be even more brutal, in order to stay in charge.

Excellent post.

Have you seen PBS Frontline's "Putin's Revenge"?

It talks about how Putin was pushed over the edge re American "democracy spreading" after becoming obsessed with the footage of Gaddafi's murder, and thereafter decided that it was no longer permissible to let the American state go uninterrupted, lest it eventually come after him and his closer allies.

 

[sub_thug]

He's a brutal dictator. But none of that yields the inference of instability or unpredictability, really.

Every single thing that I've seen of the subject is that Kim not a rational actor. I don't know how you can say that he's not unstable or unpredictable.

Huh? That was in response to Assad. You said Assad should be listed for warmongering.

I did. I maintain that Assad is at least partially responsible for the violent civil war in his own country. I think he is wholly responsible for bringing in the Russians, expanding the scope of the conflict. And Trump hasn't started any wars, so this is just a really weak argument.

I don't think anyone here is unknowing of my (and most's) opinion of Trump, but this was also to mine our entire community's distaste with their leaders. Also, I dislike Temer more than Trump.

I did try my absolute best to be objective on my personal lists, which is why I failed to include Trump on some that he could have made a great case on.

So put him on Least Popular or some other category then. Put him on Most Disappointing because of your frustration with him. Those are defensible cases that you can make. But some of the ones that you have put him on are just really weak from an objective point of view.

 

[Gregolian]

lol I removed Trump from the latter and lowered him in the former to minimize ruffled feathers.

May has been a hlarious disappointment, but I also feel kind of bad for her. Her party, made up of dickheads like Boris Johnson who actually spearheaded Brexit only to dip out when asked to be held accountable, has really hung her out to dry.

Agreed on May but at the same time you get picked as PM because you want that job. It's like Trudeau. Looked great on paper but in actual application has been a hilarious/facepalm worthy disappointment most of the time.

The shit that comes out of Trudeau's mouth is just headshakingly bad sometimes. And I don't mean the "peoplekind" shtick.

I'm talking how if it's not a prepared speech and he's ACTUALLY grilled, and the reporter goes after them with hardball questions he says uh, um, hmm more than your stereotypical valley girl would answering an AP US History question.

 

[sub_thug]

Excellent post.

Have you seen PBS Frontline's "Putin's Revenge"?

It talks about how Putin was pushed over the edge re American "democracy spreading" after becoming obsessed with the footage of Gaddafi's murder, and thereafter decided that it was no longer permissible to let the American state go uninterrupted, lest it eventually come after him and his closer allies.

Putin also believes that the biggest political tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. He's an ambitious man, to be sure.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...adimir-putin-call-breakup-ussr-greatest-geop/

 

[Trotsky]

Putin also believes that the biggest political tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. He's an ambitious man, to be sure.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...adimir-putin-call-breakup-ussr-greatest-geop/

Well, I think the entire historical arc of the USSR, from the suspension of the soviets to the usurpation of Stalin to dismantling by Gorbachev, is probably the greatest political tragedy of the 20th century. And I think a lot of leftists/socialist and historians in general share that opinion.

I go back and forth on whether its dissolution was good or bad for humankind. But, to be sure, Putin is doing absolutely nothing to revive the benefits of the USSR to the Russian people. They went from the most economically de-stratified country in the world to having some of the worst economic stratification and wealth disparities. Putin is just a corrupt stooge.

 

[TheGreatA]

Excellent post.

Have you seen PBS Frontline's "Putin's Revenge"?

It talks about how Putin was pushed over the edge re American "democracy spreading" after becoming obsessed with the footage of Gaddafi's murder, and thereafter decided that it was no longer permissible to let the American state go uninterrupted, lest it eventually come after him and his closer allies.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was true. There's certainly a huge question looming over how Putin can somehow transition his power to anybody, peacefully. A question that remains unanswered.

Whether we liked him or not, Gaddafi was a pretty big piece of the "anti-American" part of the world. Getting rid of Saddam was one thing (he was a war-mongering asshole) but Gaddafi was pretty shocking to countries who aren't under American influence. Suddenly you're bombing the shit out of a guy that only recently seemed to be getting along, and was even hailed as an African hero of sorts.

There's footage of Gaddafi talking to other Middle Eastern dictators in a conference, about Saddam's hanging, and what it means for their future. Assad, at that time was chuckling at Gaddafi's speech, about how the Americans are eventually coming for them all, but he certainly isn't laughing now.

Gaddafi's death, and the way it played out, in my opinion, only caused the rest of the "dictator crew" to double down on their strongman methods, and come to see all suggestions of "American freedom and democracy", as leading to their potential doom.

How Libya was handled, to me, is probably America's biggest geo-political blunder in recent history, even over that of the Iraq War, and its flimsy justifications. Atleast there was an attempt to re-build and transition power to new hands, while with Libya, there was no effort whatsoever. Just bomb the crap out of a country, move on and let the pieces fall where they may.

 

[TheGreatA]

Putin also believes that the biggest political tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. He's an ambitious man, to be sure.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...adimir-putin-call-breakup-ussr-greatest-geop/

It was a major disaster, I wouldn't say otherwise. Particularly in Russia. A lot of people were made dependent on that system, and were completely screwed by the capitalist oligarchy that came after.

I think Soviet Union in itself, from its beginning to the end, is the greatest political tragedy of the 20th century. Never have so many lives been wasted, for such a lost and ultimately hopeless cause.

 

[sub_thug]

Well, I think the entire historical arc of the USSR, from the suspension of the soviets to the usurpation of Stalin to dismantling by Gorbachev, is probably the greatest political tragedy of the 20th century. And I think a lot of leftists/socialist and historians in general share that opinion.

I go back and forth on whether its dissolution was good or bad for humankind. But, to be sure, Putin is doing absolutely nothing to revive the benefits of the USSR to the Russian people. They went from the most economically de-stratified country in the world to having some of the worst economic stratification and wealth disparities. Putin is just a corrupt stooge.

The Soviet Union as a historical arc is indeed a sad political tragedy. There are a number of them though, including Nazi Germany, the Cambodian experience, among others. At the end of the day, you're asking whether it's worse to be flicked in the eye or kicked in the crotch. Both suck.

I am reminded of the East Germans flooding westward when the Wall came down. That is a great piece of evidence for what life was like. Unfortunately for the Soviets, much of their production was artificially maintained by the State. The Soviets had tons of tanks, but not enough tank parts or mechanics. As such, tanks rusted in place. This is an example of parts of Soviet production, which just simply wasn't as good as their Western counterparts. What the Soviet Union did well was keep down organized crime relative to state powers. Now, organized crime is very much a tenant of government in Russia, much like our Press, the influence of celebrity, etc. The Russians would do well to remove that pillar from their system, although that's an incredibly complex task.

 

[sub_thug]

It was a major disaster, I wouldn't say otherwise. Particularly in Russia. A lot of people were made dependent on that system, and were completely screwed by the capitalist oligarchy that came after.

I think Soviet Union in itself, from its beginning to the end, is the greatest political tragedy of the 20th century. Never have so many lives been wasted, for such a lost and ultimately hopeless cause.

Please see my above post

 

[Rod1]

You're going to totally give Assad a pass for his involvement in his own civil war where he is the leader of the country? Dude, that's weak.

: one who urges or attempts to stir up war

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warmonger

I dont think Assad was looking for a civil war, the war was thrusted upon him by foreign powers, he merely decided not to give up power peacefully.

 

[TheGreatA]

The Soviet Union as a historical arc is indeed a sad political tragedy. There are a number of them though, including Nazi Germany, the Cambodian experience, among others. At the end of the day, you're asking whether it's worse to be flicked in the eye or kicked in the crotch. Both suck.

I am reminded of the East Germans flooding westward when the Wall came down. That is a great piece of evidence for what life was like. Unfortunately for the Soviets, much of their production was artificially maintained by the State. The Soviets had tons of tanks, but not enough tank parts or mechanics. As such, tanks rusted in place. This is an example of parts of Soviet production, which just simply wasn't as good as their Western counterparts. What the Soviet Union did well was keep down organized crime relative to state powers. Now, organized crime is very much a tenant of government in Russia, much like our Press, the influence of celebrity, etc. The Russians would do well to remove that pillar from their system, although that's an incredibly complex task.

Problem is that organized crime, in many ways was a product of the Soviet Union. It's just that USSR swept away all the criminals to the gulag system, which developed hardened, vehemently anti-government criminals, the vorys, and the mafiosos. Men who operated under no illusion that the state had their best interests in mind.

By unleashing them into a free-for-all society after USSR collapse, it ensured that post-Soviet Russia would be dominated by criminal elements, who had been cultivated through a brutal labour camp system in which only the hardest men would survive, under a brutal hierarchy of prisoners. Suddenly, they were able to operate in the post-Soviet lawless, disorderly and borderline anarchistic environment, where police turned a blind eye to criminal offenses and were easily corrupted.

It's only inevitable that these sort of men would carve out a strong position in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. They were built to be the most capable to survive independently, since they themselves never benefited from the system, and were only ever punished by it.