[Leofric]

No arrests at Navalny's funeral but I bet there will be a lot later out of the public eye !
I hope he isn't forgotten .

[him a layin]

there are going to be a lot of people at vladimir's funeral, celebrating.

[Leofric]

there are going to be a lot of people at vladimir's funeral, celebrating.

Will they be able to accommodate several hundred million ?!

[him a layin]

Will they be able to accommodate several hundred million ?!

as long as we're not all glowing in the dark, yes

[AzCal Retred]

Television will solve the dilemma - just like for the Super Bowl or New Year's Eve. What we need is a Deep Fake of Putin's death, maybe with a (file footage) military parade. Seeing is believing, right? If he disappears afterward, who's to say what happened first? 

[GlennF]

Much like assassinating Trump would likely replace an aging,  slightly mad and somewhat ineffectual MAGA leader with someone much more hardcore that was also competent and engender at the same time even more MAGA conspiratorial fanaticism, getting rid of Putin would turn Vladimir into a martyr and is likely to make room for an equally hardcore Russian nationalist/imperialist who is more capable, more perceptive and much more aware of the consequences of their actions.

[him a layin]

i've seen this same dilemma raised wrt adolf prior to, or during ww2. would himmler or goebbels be better or worse than AH overall? i don't know the answer. best to stop them at the ballot box, if you still have that option. otherwise...

[GlennF]

Goebbels did become chancellor for a day but then committed suicide. 

Hermann Göring  (Luftwaffe and created the Gestapo) and Martin Bormann are also candidates who arguably would have been more sane and more ruthless than Hitler.

These sort of considerations are often taken seriously. When a Provisional IRA terrorist leader was asked in a 1970s interview why they had not attempted to assassinate the Reverent Ian Paisley (outspoken loyalist troublemaker) the reply was "He is the best recruiting Sergeant we have. "

[him a layin]

i really like the breadth and depth of experience and opinion i see here, i think the international perspective helps, too.

[AzCal Retred]

Trump appeals to the populist crowd because of his celebrity status. Just another carpetbagging drunk uncle eejit would not work. The truly weezilly folks need proper cover to work their magic.

[GlennF]

Trump appeals to the populist crowd because of his celebrity status. Just another carpetbagging drunk uncle eejit would not work. The truly weezilly folks need proper cover to work their magic.

There is more to it than that. Trump is very good at finding people who feel, rightly or wrongly, disenfranchised or have a victim mentality and panders to them.

1. Trump finds unsolvable US issues other politicians avoid -  like the Southern Border or the massive problems with what is now called the Rust Belt and promises simple solutions to fix them.
In reality these are complex issues and Trump's home-spun easy solutions will invariably fail, but from the voters perspective Trump is at least paying attention and promising to try. 
(the likely "solution" to the rust belt is the cheap properties will be bought up by WFH hipster IT types who will renovate and put in solar and starlink and the whole area will be gentrified eventually, but this is not what the current locals would see as a desirable solution)

2. He is good at finding groups feared or disliked by a large number of voters and proceeding to persecute them. the impossible wall project and the banning of whole countries as Islamist are good examples.

3. He is also good at finding groups that have an almost narcissistic belief that what they hold to be true should be forced onto everyone else and promising to force their unpopular views on everyone.  Examples here include Evangelical Christians and the neonazi White Supremacist militias.

[Leofric]

as long as we're not all glowing in the dark, yes

Yes, I thought after posting I should have said ' assuming he hasn't destroyed everybody ' - in which case nobody will be attending anything !
However ,as others have now said, there will be many other evil ----- say no more.

[Leofric]

i've seen this same dilemma raised wrt adolf prior to, or during ww2. would himmler or goebbels be better or worse than AH overall? i don't know the answer. best to stop them at the ballot box, if you still have that option. otherwise...

Unfortunately the ballots are fixed if any opponents are jailed or killed !
Re ww2, I think Churchill thought Hitler was best left in power as he was making so many bad military decisions towards the end.

[GlennF]

Re ww2, I think Churchill thought Hitler was best left in power as he was making so many bad military decisions towards the end.

Right at the end he became delusional, however he basically made the same sort of decisions throughout the war.  Basically Hitler was a fan of radical left of field ideas that went against conventional military wisdom.

Early War:  Hitler endorsed slightly "out there" tactics like parachuting onto the roof of Belgian fortifications and attacking through the difficult terrain of the Ardennes Forest and these actually paid off.

Mid to Late War: The same penchant to favor crazy tactics was not optimal when on the defensive.  Even Operation SeaLion (invade Britain using un-seaworthy Rhine River Barges to cross the Royal Navy dominated English Channel) was starting to reveal the dangers of Hitler's obsession with gambling on unconventional tactics.

The Battle of the Bulge and also the decision to remake the recently completed 262 fighter as a ground attack aircraft are just two examples of late war poor decision making.

TLDR - Hitler's endorsement of unconventional wacky ideas can pay off when the enemy is caught with their pants down and you are on the offensive BUT will become a major issue and detrimental if employed on the defensive with stretched resources. Hitler did not change, the war changed.