There are Media decks that you pull from that give you Spin points so you can make things look like a better or worse idea. There are Natural Disaster cards, and Social movements.
If 2 or more games are going on in the same room, you can trade with them, and declare war for reasons.
It's like Spartacus+Life+GoT (second edition)
They control all the money on the board and explain to players what they are doing and why. They draw a deck at random granting them advantages and weaknesses. The objective is to get reelected and leave the players better off, or not! Who knows?
Let's say that within the frame of a second, every single head of state or government on Earth dies of a heart attack. The first 10 people in every established line of succession also suffer the same fate. Exactly what happens after this?
Is it right to set aside the criticism? Doesn't making excuses for terrible people/governments make us apologists?
EG: Maduro created a house of Congress specifically to nullify the National Assembly when his party lost majority. He's also arrested opposition leaders with no reasons and some were later released after elections because of a lack of any evidence. However the US is agressively trying to influence the military against Maduro's which I believe is also wrong. I've been against Maduro for years seeing him as a Despot. I keep running into leftists insisting i cannot criticize him at this time and I should sit down and shut up.
I recently noticed that the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme killed in 1986 had the UN flag present at various moment of his funeral. He was indeed a strong internationalist. Thus my interrogation, I can not think of any other head of state who had the UN flag presented at his/her funeral. Can you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZ26pEV-v4
https://preview.redd.it/03dcwb4z09q21.jpg?width=617&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c976cc26346d918365d950ba4dd4e737aa6062e0
The only premodern republic that seemed to elect a single executive was Venice. The others that I know a little about (Athens, Rome, Florence) were all governed by legislative bodies with only informal leaders, leading to internal dynamics not unlike “The Tyranny of Structurelessness”. I was going to ask if all premodern republics were like that, but apparently the Venetian Doge was elected via a complicated, indirect process sort of like if the US Electoral College had individual discretion (eventually, so it wouldn’t become hereditary).
All modern democracies that I’m familiar with, however, elect a single head of government and/or state. In parliamentary democracies the head of government is elected indirectly, but since it’s usually a campaign issue, the voters do have some say.
My question, therefore, is twofold: (1) did Doge function more as an elected monarch like the contemporary Holy Roman Emperor or like a present-day prime minister or US president who has to maintain support among the legislature to remain effective, and (2) did contemporary monarchs consider the Doge “one of them” or a different kind of ruler?
Actually, a third question occurs to me: Was the office of Doge considered an important precedent for the chief executive of a republic by the founders of the US or any other country?
Might have already happened, dunno.
