Strongman vs Weak President

     A friend argued that he liked a "strongman" (quick action; action happens because no effective opposition; a.k.a. "benevolent dictator").  I argued for the opposite (representative democracy with weak president; requires consensus (so great ideas win); slow/takes time so more gradual change; more representative of the will of the people; journalists, intellectuals, writers, artists, political dissenters, religious minorities, racial minorities, labor unions, immigrants, and LBGTQ like weak presidents; requires educated public and middle class).

     The core problem with the strongman is what you think about what they implement.  A bad strongman is dictator.  Super wealthy that want political influence like strongmen since only one side to buy (so cheaper and very likely to get results and quicker results).