FDR was on the verge of becoming a dictator and he absolutely never needed to do away with elections.

Porfirio Díaz was absolutely a dictator who was elected several times.

Both dictatorships are the reasoning behind term limits in the US and Mexico.

FDR was not a dictator despite how much I disagree with his politics, and I don't believe term limits are necessary.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/the-truth-about-dutertes-popularity-in-the-philippines/

"Put bluntly, his popularity actually isn’t that much higher relative to his predecessors, and his initially high ratings tell us little about the degree to which Filipinos support his controversial policies, how much political capital he has to expend on his ambitious agenda, and how his political fortunes may evolve over time."

FDR wanted to be a dictator real bad. Most of his policies went how he wanted until they got to court. And he tried to overtly manipulate the Supreme Court in his favor.

Well to be fair the Lochner era court that FDR had to contend with was a freakish mess. It was a major anachronism. Kind of like the way the court is about to be with zero popular support and thoroughly discredited.

"http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/the-truth-about-dutertes-popularity-in-the-philippines/"

What gibberish is this? People supporting Duterte says little about what they think of his most prominent policy? Only from Western propaganda media.

"FDR wanted to be a dictator real bad. Most of his policies went how he wanted until they got to court. And he tried to overtly manipulate the Supreme Court in his favor."

Oh, right, I forgot about that. I concede FDR might have had dictatorial tendencies.

Leon conceded a previous statement? I'm impressed

It looks like this thread is close to death. But thank you to all contributors. All jokes aside, I enjoyed listening to both sides of the drug trafficking argument in the Phillipines. And I liked hearing your all's analogies and what if's. Thanks again

Someone needs to learn a bit of Roman history. The position of Dictator can be given to a high ranking Roman for a limited term, or for their life. And it does nothing to stop senators being elected, or the republics functioning.

Usually it is done to give a strong leader in war-time who is empowered effectively manage all the necessary functions of state to effectively prosecute said war.

It was only with Julius Caesar, after being appointed dictator several times, and then stabbed to death by fellow senators for being seen as a threat to the republic and having his legal heir (Augustus) manage to retake the position that the republic fell.

And we still remember July and August as months named after these two - so really you have no excuse for forgetting.

Not to mention, one Harvey Dent recently waxed eloquent on exactly that point.

@orathaic

in fact Cincinnatus is potentially my favorite historical figure of all time

In case anyone is interested, this reddit thread's comments seem to have lots of good discussion and personal anecdotes from Filipinos regarding Duterte's drug policies and general influence on the nation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/5jjjld/the_president_of_the_philippines_rodrigo_duterte/

Oh shit, people are talking about instances of users going to rehab, getting off drugs, and still being legally killed even though they don't have anything with drugs anymore. That's even worse than what I had thought.