The current batch of presidential candidates leaves me feeling nothing. I don’t feel inspired by any of them. I don’t feel interested in any of them. All I feel is…nothing, a generalized emptiness that edges into contempt.
You may feel the same way. When it comes to politics, disappointment is now so routine that we simply take it for granted. None of the candidates has anything positive to offer. All they are offering is a continuation of the same tired old policies.
It goes almost without saying that the mainstream Democrat and Republican candidates are two names with almost no distinction. Both of these parties long ago were bought out by big money and corporate interests, and ceased to care about the plight of the average man in America. Yes, of course, they pay lip service to the Old Ideal, and they are great readers of idealistic speeches on the teleprompter, but in the end they will do little to upset the status quo.
Enter the entertainer
One current maverick has generated some hype, which I suppose has the merit of offering some entertainment and excitement. Donald Trump has crashed the party and has been pissing in the punchbowl, and the establishment candidates don’t quite know how to respond.
But in the end, it is difficult to see Trump as anything more than a consummate showman, a carnival barker who functions as a North American version of Italy’s bunga-bunga tycoon Silvio Berlusconi. Trump likes to spout off at the mouth, to talk about how rich and successful he is, and to rip into the arrogant establishment marionettes like John McCain and Hillary Clinton. And they do deserve every bit of scorn that Trump pours on.
But Trump remains an entertainer, an egoist looking for a platform. His penchant for glitz and invective is not the stuff that statesmen or good leaders are made of. He lacks judgment and caution, and these will be his undoing. You may remember, several years ago, that he launched into one tirade after another against television personality Rosie O’Donnell, who had slighted him in one way or another.
Instead of responding and moving on, Trump went on the attack against O’Donnell, slamming her with personal insults. While these videos (which you can find on YouTube) may have been amusing, and while Trump may have scored off O’Donnell, there is something distinctly unmanly about such a performance.
To waste one’s time repeatedly attacking a fool is a fool’s errand. Trump emerges as an enraged child, an arrogant egoist who cannot deal with the insult on his sense of self-importance. These videos reveal the character of the man.
Is the end approaching?
The only positive thing that emerges out of the current bumper crop of campaign nonentities is the fact that we are one step closer to hitting rock bottom. How is this good? Because history suggests that good presidents emerge only in times of crisis. Several historical examples make the point.
When Abraham Lincoln first took office, the nation was in the worst situation it had ever been in. Half of the Union had seceded. Lincoln was nearly universally looked on as a country-bumpkin unfit for office, a man who had not even received a majority of the vote. He was too timid for the radical Republicans, and perceived as too radical for many others.
The first year of the war was a terrible one for the Union. At that time, the South produced the majority of the world’s cotton; and the blockade of Southern ports threatened to bring in the intervention of France and England. The British would have been satisfied to see the United States self-destruct. In Paris, Napoleon III entertained fantasies of being a North American power, and to this end installed a puppet in Mexico City.
No military victories were forthcoming, either. In the field, the Union was getting trounced in nearly every engagement. Lincoln’s generals were slow to move, inept, and more interested in squabbling among themselves than in moving against the enemy.
But slowly the tide began to change. Lincoln’s deft handling of political crises (like the Trent Affair, the issues with border states, and the handling of the slavery issue) showed that he was a master of maneuver. On the battlefield, the victories began to happen, first in the west with Grant’s capture of Forts Henry and Donelson, and then slowly in the east.
James Knox Polk remains one of the most underappreciated presidents, but his record is extremely impressive. He was nearly an unknown when he entered office, but embarked on an extremely aggressive foreign policy that oversaw serious territorial issues like the Mexican War, the acquisition of the Oregon Territory, and the annexation of Texas.
James K. Polk
The Great Depression of the 1930s presented another example of a leader appearing from nowhere to manage a crisis. When Franklin Roosevelt took office, the United States was flat on its back. Millions were out of work; consumer demand had plummeted due to the fact that no one had any money; and people’s confidence in the political system had nearly evaporated. Revolution was not quite in the air, yet, but things were definitely headed in that direction.
But Roosevelt possessed boundless optimism, perhaps a product of his personal victory over the disease that had crippled him. He also came from a family that truly believed in the value of public service in its own right. Step by step, Roosevelt took action to address the crisis. His methods sometimes worked, and sometimes did not. But he at least did something, and gave the appearance of hope that stood in stark contrast to the negativity and confusion of his predecessor Herbert Hoover.
Am I disappointed that I have no candidate that I can feel enthusiastic about? Yes. But I’ve gotten used to that feeling. We live in an age of political mediocrities. Those who hold the reins of power are not willingly going to share what they have, and no president in my lifetime has been able or eager to stand up to them.
But give it time. We still haven’t hit rock bottom. People are still too smug, too self-satisfied, too fat, too happy, and too deluded. And maybe that’s what it will take. Meaningful reforms can only happen when there is no other choice. And when the crisis is at hand, then, and only then, will the man of the hour appear.
I keep my blade sharp, and await his arrival.
Read More: 5 Reason Not To Make Retail Your Career
The office of president seemingly matters little these days.
Everything flows within the currents of causality. There is no great revelation, no beginning or end, this is just another stage, blip, in human existence. We’ll never be on God’s level. Every generation believes that their time is the most critical in our history, only for a greater crisis to come in the next generation. Admittedly, this is a low point for humans, but our nature cannot live in this false world forever, we will either destroy ourselves or find some way to move past it, which will no doubt kill off most of us anyways.
damn, for a second i thought you really believed what you wrote before that.
^This.
Our future is based on a reflection of history. Dont do it at your peril.
“Am I disappointed that I have no candidate that I can feel enthusiastic about? Yes. But I’ve gotten used to that feeling. We live in an age of political mediocrities. Those who hold the reins of power are not willingly going to share what they have, and no president in my lifetime has been able or eager to stand up to them.”
^This again. Tired of voting against other people. Leadership is what we need….not broken promises and lies about the state of our nation.
Democracy is broken.
Solution?
More democracy.
No thanks
Note the graphic for the article is a suit being pulled off to reveal…. BLUE.
Yes, being a “hero” is blue pill. Saving people from what is apparently the very fates they deserve.
And for what reason? To be loved?
Like when the white knight goes and saves the damsel she will love him and give him children and sex everyday and a well kept house and unconditional love? Yes a blue superhero uniform would be suitable for him.
A real hero is hated. A real hero tells “the masses” (say it fast enough and what does “the masses” sound like?) what they don’t want to hear. The real hero will show the few who want to hear it the path to escape, to help them steal the lifeboats and leave the stupid behind to be eaten by sharks.
Thought it implied the Blue Man group was gonna save the world
And then blue becomes black, and the world is saved by This Is Serious Mum, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas …
of course, to be loved. you are so cold. let the sheep blow you while you shave your new winter coat off their backs.
I see you want a revolution, well, ya know …
i am all about the love.
That is still a drama. There is no real hero.
democracy was always broken hence the founders made a republic. it took 20 some amendments to morph our republic into a mostly democracy. to quote the wise founders
“democracy is a mob rule tyranny”
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
Ah yes, the standard issue civics lecture. *yawn*
The context of my comment was democracy as representative government.
It is broken. It will not fix itself anymore than a broken car will.
makes you wonder why the brits wanted adopt the system after it worked sooo well in greece. Apparently one rok article mentioned that it always ended in some complete scandel.
Yes the “in your face” leftoidism where they transexualize the kids right in front of you while giving you the finger, sign petitions to exact “male privilege taxes”, social justice bullying mobs, and all that is going to give rise to a new leader.
One who won’t give a shit when you call him a racist. One who is going to say that which needs to be said but everybody from cuckservative to office slave cog is afraid to say.
And if the only choice left is to don brown uniforms and bash the red uniforms in the head on the street, that’s going to happen too.
It already happened. As the Contra Sandinistas demonstrated, it’s the only way to deal with red uniforms effectively.
And when that day comes, considering the amount of raw reckless hatred coming from the left, I won’t be doing a damned thing to stop the reaction to it. Even now I look back on all “victims” and “oppressed peoples” and wonder if they had it coming.
When it all goes down, I won’t be saving any damsels in distress, either. They wanted to be treated like men, by god I say let them save their own asses from the roving mobs and rape gangs.
unfortunate that the most extreme leftists are hardly worthy of rape.
I suggest reading The People as Enemy by John Spritzler. Roosevelt was not a great man or President.
The same can be said about other American presidents that have been idolized. Lincoln, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton and Obama. I can even mention other leaders e.g. Mandela; Gandhi;
You should go on YouTube and look up Stefan Molyneux his series called “The Truth About..”
There are video about Lincoln, Clinton, Obama, Mandela, Candhi, Karl Marx, etc. That really tells the truth about them and what horrible people they were. And about how they are praised as heroes because most people are to stupid to actually read a history book to see how in reality they are monsters.
All heroes are tyrants in some way. Stop deluding yourself that anything other than the result matters.
Stefan Molyneux is a cult leader.
l0l yeah, because history books are SO impartial.
“Stop deluding yourself that anything other than the result matters.” Are you fucking kidding me???
So mass murder is okay if then everyone will have more money since billions of people are murdered and their belongings are taken by the survivors?
Plus the results have always been really bad. There hasn’t been a tyrant that has brought prosperity to the world.
And for Stefan Molyneux I don’t know if he’s a cult leader or not. You’re just throwing adjectives without proof doesn’t help the case. Show me proof that he’s a cult leader and I’ll believe you and even apologise.
But despite anything, does what you personally think of him change the facts? If he in fact is a cult leader does that mean that the facts about historic figures are wrong?
“Cult leader”= “Someone who I disagree with who has a lot of followers”
“tyrant” = “Someone who I disagree with who has a lot of followers”
The difference is that lincoln and men like him have lasting accomplishments and can be said to be a great man, whereas molyneux gathers followers and disaffects them from their social groups purely for the sake of his own egotism. I don’t even disagree with all of his views, but he accomplishes nothing while demanding a ridiculous level of respect. Why would I need someone like that to do my thinking for me.
Mass murder will occur whether there are great men or not, humanity will always choose to kill each other in some way. The great men provide structure and ensure these sacrifices are not ultimately meaningless. The problem with people like you is that you see the negative in great people so you do not have to acknowledge that they were greater than you will ever be. A flimsy “meh, he wasn’t perfect” is the exact sort of argument I would expect from someone who spends their time denigrating rather than improving. I don’t agree with the policies of say, FDR, but to think I would do better in his situation or that I am somehow greater than him because I can throw out criticism is the exact sort of reasoning that society destroying progressives embrace.
“I don’t agree with the policies of say, FDR, but to think I would do better in his situation or that I am somehow greater than him because I can throw out criticism is the exact sort of reasoning that society destroying progressives embrace.”
What kind of conundrum is that? A good one, I guess because I can’t figure that shit out.
Let me try;
FDR was a serious progressive but to criticize him is wrong and to be critical of him would be the exact sort of thing progressives would do so it’s to be avoided. Therefore don’t criticize progressive policy because progressives are assholes who destroy so don’t be like them by criticizing them even though I’m doing that right now but just not to FDR but criticizing Molyneux is okay even though he only has a youtube channel to share ideas and didn’t establish a massive state-sponsored system of daily theft via compensation due to identity, but don’t criticize that or you are just like the assholes that you shouldn’t criticize even though I just did by calling them assholes.
How’d I do?
That would make a great Buddhist koan to achieve a mindless state because your own brain would be all, “Fuck it, I quit. I’m done.”
You failed to explain how molyneux has accomplished anything near the level of becoming president. But keep on worshiping him. It suits you.
The manosphere is dead. You guys are freaking idiots. It was fun while it lasted. Done.
Try not to cry.
Edit: I’ll explain why I believe that to you. Molyneux paints himself as greater than historical figures by taking all of the bad and none of the good. Since no one is perfect, it is very easy to paint anyone who had any authority to start wars and take lives as complete monsters. This is the problem with this country, as all a politician has to do is present himself in a messianic image to get elected, and no one will ask of his past or what accomplishments he has put forth to be worthy of office.
Enter how a politically bred puppet like Obama was placed into office, painted as a saintly and just man even though he attended a racist church that called for violence against white citizens. At the same time, Ron Paul was painted as a racist even though he gave free treatment to impoverished black mothers and the article he was blamed for writing was written by someone else. There is a reason healthy societies have a mandate of respect, both for the living and dead. It is so this shit does not happen.
Democracy is only effective so long as it guided by good societal values.
Molyneux is a guy on youtube. I’ve watched 7 or 8 of his vids. You’re off and running with all that other shit. You’re on your own.
Agree with you on most of it. Not sure what Kennedy did that was awful. If you have suggested reading please post. I like to learn.
Here’s a video I love about F.D.R. and the Great Depression.
It explains how he was the reason that it lasted that long. He implemented some of the worst economic policies that world has ever seen.
Precisely. I would comment the same. Regarding economic policies, Harding was the best american president, as you can see on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
I don’t look up to Lincoln at all. He was a tyrant. He’s the reason we have the federal behemoth right now instead of states that run their own affairs. He also didn’t go into the Civil War with the noble purpose of ending slavery he is credited with. He just tacked that on towards the end of the war, and it was a tactic, nothing more.
While Trump may turn out to be nothing more than a flash in the pan, I would prefer to see him go all the way than any of the establishment hacks, if nothing else for the entertainment value and to watch the mainstream media shit itself in between downing truckloads of Maalox and Rolaids as Trump speaks for people who have been silenced by them for more than a generation.
“I don’t look up to Lincoln at all. He was a tyrant and opportunist. He’s
the reason we have the Federal behemoth right now instead of states
that run their own affairs.”
This ^^
I’m not really well versed and educated in the history of American leaders but the false idol-ism of Lincoln reminds me of the false idol-ism of Mandela. Hypocrisy is a definitive feature in these men.
b-but he was a vampire hunter and saved us from those bloodsuckers.
Mandela was a terrorist! Did you know he lobbed a live grenade into a bus in the early to mid sixties, just before going to prison?
A love grenade? Fuck was he, some kind of hippy?
That was typo and meant to read “live grenade” and you’re not funny or witty
… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/177b1d34a9ed74bb1a3e3d29c9a368890039583a84ed74a90c12e357a4e840a8.jpg
Ever been to the Lincoln Shrine in DC? Creepy.
Who idolizes Mandela? Lets not forget Mandela was fighting oppression while Lincoln was creating it. I am sure Mandela committed a few crimes on his way but I don’t think the two are comparable. After all, Mandela did not plunge his country into the most self-destructive war in its history.
I despise Lincoln. The death of 1 million White men are on his hands.
Abraham Lincoln was a deeply insecure man with an inferiority complex towards William Seward, one of America’s greatest statesman. Any advice he received was always cross-examined because of this. Lincoln also didnt take the Southern secession seriously while Seward was negotiating to keep Europe from aiding the South. Lincoln actually waited until the day after Virginia had already seceded to offer the job of commander of Union forces to Robert E Lee, who was recognized as the greatest general in the US. Lee himself later said that if Lincoln had given him command first before the Confederates, he would have taken it, and the Civil War would have been over quickly. This pissed off Seward, since he had advised Lincoln to recruit Lee way sooner, but Lincoln was too obsessed with catering to railroad tycoons to actually take control and prevent war from breaking out.
If it wasnt for Generals Ulysses S Grant and William Sherman, the Union would have lost the Civil War, even with their numerical superiority and their manufacturing superiority. The North won the war in spite of Lincoln, not because of him.
“The North won the war in spite of Lincoln, not because of him.”
No.
Strong.
You also forgot to mention Abraham Lincoln was a hardcore racist who wanted all the blacks deported to Liberia. Another tidbit you neglected to make note of besides his complete incompetence.
You say that like its a bad thing. Just think, if Lincoln had deported all the ex-slaves, there would have been no tray on Martin, ferguson, Eric garner, or Jesse Jackson or Al sharp ton to stir them up
Better it is to say that Lincoln destroyed the Union.
Yep, then you’d be able to get a job as a janitor.
Given how freeing the slaves turned out for the US, he was dead right on that.
The “slaves” turned out fine.
Start with St. Louis and Baltimore. Philadelphia is a hell hole. Anything the negroes touch turns to crap. They should still be deported. But then that’s what the prisons are for.
Not sure what you mean, but I wouldn’t mind if you got the fuck out of America
That’s because of the welfare system idiot you sound like those closet KKKrats
We all know it’s because of the welfare system.
What’s your point?
So why are you mentioning skin color?
Just go by IQ scores. Asians at the top, then Whites, hispanics next and then finally, at the bottom, negroes. You see the results in the ghettos and prisons. Doesn’t take a genius to understand. Even a negros can get it.
IQ measures your ability to separate small things to big things.
i saw this pompous documentary about america where it said that lincoln won the war with the use of the railroad system, by transporting troops quickly and stuff.
Remeber Berlesconi did win power.
Dont write off Trump!
Berlusconi is a buffoon. Do you want (another) buffoon running America?
We’re going to get that anyway, regardless.
Idiot…i was pointing out berlesconi won power so dont write off a similar character like Trump…
Interestingly i do believe America does need Trump to avoid disaster.
It was a nice feeling but the first mixed race President ran up more debt than every President that preceeded him put together.
Why don’t you go help yourself to a plate of kiss my ass?
You’re a fool who thinks he is some kind of genius and intellectual…laughable.
Go eat a hot bowl of dicks.
We have a buffoon running America now, and the next president will be a buffoon to, hillary or a bible thumping retard republican, no difference.
Enjoy the show that never ends
I can understand the arguments against Lincoln, but there is always a delicate balance of power that leaders have to play with. If Lincoln had done what you wanted, which is to not have taken an aggressive stance against secession, then there is no doubt that the US would have ended up weakened in the long run. Do you really think the US would have been the decisive force it was in World War I, which was a mere 50 years after the Civil War, if it had allowed itself to disintegrate into a collection of mediocre neighboring states and territories? There is a good chance that the course of history would be very different than what it is today.
I’m all for reducing the size and influence of today’s massive federal government, but I believe sometimes you really do need a strong central government if you have something that needs to be accomplished. While a small government, laissez faire style sounds good on paper, it usually doesn’t end up working out due to too many competing personal interests.
“Lincoln had done what you wanted, which is to not have taken an
aggressive stance against secession, then there is no doubt that the US would have ended up weakened in the long run. Do you really think the US would have been the decisive force it was in World War I, which was a mere 50 years after the Civil War, if it had allowed itself to disintegrate into a collection of mediocre neighboring states and territories? There is a good chance that the course of history would be very different than what it is today.”
Lets examine it. Lincoln lets the South go, probably no war by the Northern Union (maybe the CSA) against the Spanish over the sinking of a ship in Cuba, no Federal Reserve, no income tax, no intervention in World War I (maybe the Union and the CSA take opposite sides and fight eachother), no Allied victory, no horrible peace treaty with a Ponzi scheme attached that causes the Depression, Russia still becomes the USSR but doesn’t get the Ukraine and Baltic states back from Germany (no Holdomar starvation and a much weaker USSR in general), no Weimar republic, no Nazis, no New Deal, no World War II, no nukes dropped on Japan, no CIA, no Cold War, no military industrial complex (MIC), no Korean war, no JFK assassination, no Great Society, no Vietnam war, no hippies…. And well, I can’t bear to continue because this alternate reality sounds horrible, just horrible.
Hahaha an awful lot of hypotheticals in there. Well the way I see it, if the USA had been divided, it surely would not have ended up as the world’s strongest economy. It would probably have been about as significant in world affairs as say, Australia or New Zealand are today.
I guess my original point was to emphasize that the ideology of anti-big government is not always the smartest. Sure, it’s applicable in relation to today’s bloated federal government behemoth, however it is not correct to say that the the same mindset should have been applied at an earlier age in American history that had a different set of priorities and needs than what we have today. Nothing of historical importance ever got done without a strong central government. It is not wise to talk about how great and powerful America is/was but ignore the very reasons that made it so great and powerful.
If Lincoln hadn’t fought to preserve the Union, the world would still revolve around Europe and we’d probably be sitting here talking in French or German. Then again, I do realize that this is all hypothetical and we’ve got more important things to worry about today than whether or not we should worship Lincoln.
I am also troubled by Lincoln. However, the south wanted to keep slavery as its primary economic system. While this might not have been Lincoln’s primary motive to war, it was his primary motive to keeping the Union. Why? because without a union, slavery would have continued, and there would have been no United States. Each of the documents filed to claim secession by the southern states wrote that slavery was their primary motivation and used property rights as a justification. Slavery almost prevented the formation of the United States, and it needed to be dealt with, and was the underlying reason for the war. You don’t have to believe this, just look at the individual state documents, it’s all there for anyone to read.
In fairness to Lincoln — and I do take your points — he sure as hell wouldn’t have allowed Latin America to invade the US, feminism to metastasize, or gotten the US involved in countless, pointless, overseas adventures. He sure as hell wouldn’t be taking any orders from Tel Aviv.
His tariff platforms, meantime, which were infinitely more important to him than slavery, would have prevented the outsourcing of US jobs.
And don’t get me started on his plans for African Americans after emancipation.
Lincoln is a complicated figure — a lot more complicated than the left-wing caricature pseudo-historians (yes, I’m talking about Eric Foner, Doris Kearns Goodwin et al) present him as being.
Quintus was not making normative judgments, merely advocating for their political prowess.
But Roosevelt was the worst.
Many awful trends go back to him. He didn’t invent them but they were popularized by his administration.
Brain trust = colleges being at the behest of the state and having an incestuous relationship
New Deal = Keynesianism and the nanny state (as Alice Roosevelt said)
FDR created the CCC in the early years of the depression, the ‘civilian conservation corps’. It was like community service work but the logistics, the recruiting, the basic training and the ranks and heirarchy of officers was exactly the same as military. When Pearl Harbor hit and war was declared, the CCC merely flipped its sign over to where it read ‘I want you’. That’s what the CCC was. It was set up as a model for getting civilians off the street, recruiting, training and putting them in uniform on a munite’s notice. IT WAS PLANNED. FDR knew a decade before Pearl Harbor that the nation was going to be in a blood bath. HE KNEW FULL WELL what was ahead and played ball with the globalists.
This.
This article went right out the window for me as soon as the author started praising FDR.
Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt are often given automatic admiration even by right wingers when they were really both extreme statists. And no I’m not mistaking Teddy for FDR.
Lincoln got his idea for emancipation from the British who used the same tactic in 1812. He didn’t care about black people.
FDR was a committed socialist who laid the groundwork for the endless recession we have now. People talk about FDR getting the US out of Depression. What a joke. He extended it for more than ten years!
And today, Obama is doing the same.
Lincoln’s biggest mistake was not retuning the former slaves to Africa or sending the, to Haiti. If he had done so imagaine the USA today, a far gater country with less crime, less welfare and less debt, and a much more pleasant place to live.
Cities like Detroit still populated by whites and still booming.
And none of the follow on ‘victimised’ special status groups that followed the lead the blacks gave.
You might as well stop writing and save yourself the carpel tunnel. Your attempts to bait me are transparent and pointless.
It’s not all about you Bob…what i say is true..
Civil War?
Oh, you mean the War of Northern Aggression?
Wasn’t anything civil about it. 🙂
I think your assessment of Trump is wrong. He is more than a sideshow in this now and he resonates with a population of people who the media establishment has tried to silence. Rosie O’Donnell dissed him so he let her have it, calling her out as the ugly beast she is. People don’t want a “careful” politician with good “judgement”. They want someone to give then a better way of life then the current sorry state of affairs.
That whole Rosie O’Donnell fiasco actually made me respect Trump even more. I realize some of this was him putting on for the camera, but here we also see a true Alpha male whose no fucks given attitude is just what this country sorely needs now. I mean just watch in awe as he slices through PC bullshit like a buzzsaw. He calls her a fatass, talks about her being a lesbian, and talks about how ugly she is, a trifecta. https://youtu.be/d32577Hom08
Yeah, sure that’s entertaining. And I laughed along with the rest. I admit I enjoyed it.
But this is not the stuff of great men. Great men do not condescend to attack losers.
in our culture you have to put these people in their place otherwise they continue to run amuck and slander your name. He set the record straight with truth. That’s what is missing in American mainstream culture, truth.
I think the real problem is division. No one in America wants to be one culture/society. Everyone wants to break themselves off into “sub-cultures” and tell people they don’t belong. I say we need someone who doesn’t just tell the truth but can bring people together with that truth.
I have to agree with Quintus here though, I can’t imagine great leaders of yesteryear giving a cunt like Rosie O’ donnel the time of day.
yea you can’t let these people get away with their bullshit. it’s way past the point of ‘turn the other cheek’ they will take everything from you
great leaders of yesterday did not have television. i think that these portrayed personalities of the past are caricatures.
why should a man not demonstrate his strength?
cause the stronger guy “does not need to prove anything”? stupid. just look at those idiotic yogis and martial arts gurus that would not stand a chance if they had to demonstrate their skills.
I get what you’re saying but with a tipping over democracy, you can’t be the strong, silent type anymore. None of the dummies will even notice you. If they notice, they won’t respect that. That archetype has no place anymore as much as I wish it did. The Donald is about the perfect guy right now because he’s willing to mix it up and get noticed by the mouth-breathers.
I think you give too much credit to our electorate to recognize a great man. Besides, what’s not to like about making fun of that fat ass bucket head. Maybe Trump is what the average American Boob can relate to and needs. The time ever bring forth the right man for the job, kinda like The Big Lebowski.
“To my utter despair I have discovered, and discover every day anew, that there is in the masses no revolutionary idea or hope or passion.”
Mikhail Bakunin
I dunno about that. Rosie is a winner in somebody’s view because they give her a soap box to deliver her views.
I just don’t think we’ve had a good public feud from a politician in a while.
Jefferson did have a number of enemies including Adams and Hamilton. Some of the things Jefferson wrote about them makes Trump look tame (like Adams being a hermaphrodite).
J. Q. Adams had an insane rivalry with Jackson (‘his wife is a prostitute’).
Both Washington and Adams had a running feud with Thomas Paine (who was more a newspaper man than anything else).
FDR and Hearst would go at it.
Truman wrote to critic Paul Hume concerning Hume’s criticism of a performance Margaret Truman gave, “Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!”
…and Lincoln wrote a lot of harsh, crank letters to the point that he was going to fight a duel with James Shield!
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/lincoln-hub/abraham-lincolns-duel.html
My point is many of our leaders were assholes at times and didn’t let things slide.
Trump doesn’t give a shit about anyone but himself and his own ego. He’s in this race to pump his investments and his brand.
Do I think any of the other dorks are any better? No, I don’t.
But this guy is not what you think he is.
You may be right. I could see it either way, to be honest.
right. all great leaders are absolutely selfless.
i prefer honest selfishness over moral vanity. it does not make him a bad president. he either has something to offer or he does not.
I respect your opinion but fail to see how you have formulated it.
Seeing how you are a man of classical history and civilization, I think you should have picked Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus as a model of virtue and leadership or perhaps Arminius of the Cherusci.
Perhaps the reason great leaders — with the proviso that great is not a synonym for good — appear only in times of crisis is that they are not permitted the scope of action that would allow them to demonstrate their qualities under any other circumstances. Such men might be with us at all times, but be unrecognized in tranquil eras simply because there’s nothing to be great about.
Another reason might be that men have more courage in times of crisis, simply because they have less to lose. I’m honest: I have very radical views but am rather moderate in my daily life, simply because I have much to lose.
But change always begins with people who don’t have as much to lose. They are the first who look for an alternative to a system that doesn’t work for them. Which is one more reason why we shouldn’t piss on the poor and the ones with little formal education – because they will be (and already are) the ones who do the first step.
This article has enlightened my mind about America’s checkered political history and the MEN who mapped out America’s ascendancy as the world’s only superpower. Focus on the men, because I don’t see any revolutionary women figure drastically influence America’s fate quite like men.
Indeed it is disheartening to note that current presidential aspirants has pledged their loyalty to big corporations that seemingly pump in astronomical sums of greenback.
On a pessimistic note, I think it’s highly unlikely a man of reputable character and valor can survive in the notorious political jungle. Those establishment maggots will never allow such leader to claim his rightful place. They will go at any lengths to preserve their influence like the Bush and Clinton dynasty.
Not since I was banned long ago by the whiny bitch Athlone McGuiness for calling him out on his race-baiting articles have I felt compelled to comment here. Much has improved with the quality of the new writers since the early days (Who can forget 2 Wckyd, the ninjitsu ass-kicking stud that pummeled those white supremacist assholes that crashed his awesome party). But this article is pure trash and only something a cuckservative is capable of writing. Lincoln & FDR, get the f*ck out of here with that nonsense, good grief.
The left will have us all walking our final mile before political reform comes. They are committed to their party and willing to sacrifice millions of people to see it through. It’s sick.
The article in a gist – ROOSH FOR PRESIDENT!
Nahhh. Too swarthy.
Also, too Muslim.
Suffering breeds character. A great leader can only rise amidst perilous and critical times. What do Washington, Ceaser, Napoleon, Hitler and Putin have in common? They rose when their respective countries had suffered a humiliation of some sort and the populace was unsure and even anxious of the future of the state.
Americans are too comfortable and will never see a great leader emerge unless they suffer a great humiliation or loss of some sort WITHIN their borders. Apathy, hedonism and mass debauchery aren’t really solid platforms in which a great leader can emerge from.
P.S. You need to use better examples than FDR and Lincoln. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt were the magnum opus of Great American leaders
it’s also odd that an article highlighting great american leaders fails to mention the mack daddy of great american leaders George Washington.
I nominate Andrew Jackson. The man was captured by the British during the Revolutionary War; Served during several wars shortly thereafter, then fought tooth and nail against the Federal Reserve System (and won).
Of course Adams, Jefferson, and TR were great presidents. But they didn’t come into office with the desperate crises that Lincoln or FDR faced. That’s why I used them, and Polk, as examples.
Everyone here seems to have forgotten Polk.
Curtius, Roosevelt did a terrible job. A president who properly dealt with a economic crisis was Harding, as you can see in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
nowadays, a great humiliation within the borders would probably be construed as a conspiracy meant to invade poor little harmless states. how racist.
“Americans are too comfortable and will never see a great leader emerge unless they suffer a great humiliation or loss of some sort WITHIN their borders. Apathy, hedonism and mass debauchery aren’t really solid platforms in which a great leader can emerge from.”
The closest America has come to that in the last 15 years has been 9/11 and that only affected NYC.
Great leaders are plucked from the stars, forged from the fire of their time and no force under heaven can stop them. The jury is out on whether “Great” is good or bad.
a bit disneyy, perhaps.
http://i.imgur.com/gnByf8s.jpg
Question is why do you need the top dog at all?
During the so called Dark Ages in Europe people managed absolutely fine without the state. The strength of the Western civilization up until the 20th century was developed on the bases of the notion man=good state=bad. It was only after the brutalities of the WW1 when this idea got flipped man=bad state=good. From then on, we’ve seen the progressive rise of the state power and the demonizing of the man.
let us not forget that back then there were no newspapers or even books to announce all the great leaders to the people. and if there had been, luther only knows who may have been able to read them.
most people’s world may well have ended beyond the borders of their farm. naturally, they would not care much beyond that and all they would know would be even worse gossip and mysticism than you get served by the modern tabloid.
The Dark Ages weren’t some anarcho-libertarian utopia, they were an era of feudal states. Less centralized than modern states, but at least as prone to abuses of power. And people didn’t “manage fine”, those were called Dark Ages for a reason. That was the age when Western civilization was rock bottom, the poor and backward ass-end of the Eurasian continent.
I had a job like that once. I didn’t last long!
Only in a crisis will a great leader emerge. His name is:
MATLOCK!!!
http://images2.laweekly.com/imager/griffith-as-matlock/u/original/4242354/andy_griffith_matlock_nbc.jpg
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/7/f/4/7f4c72ea66ceb3676be9cc87c119aa15.jpg
Trump isn’t a “side-show”. The US now has its Nigel Farage:
The same exact response that Trump and actual conservatives gets from the media is the same response UKIP got from the BBC and media in general even though they are now the fourth biggest party in Britain, and are continuing to grow, siphoning votes from disenfranchised voters from across the entire political spectrum, and are re-engaging voters who haven’t voted in years or decades….kind of like Reagan.
What the country needs is a nationalist….which Trump definitely fits the bill for being. He’s resonating because he embodies the American Spirit, as Reagan did–who got votes from across the entire political spectrum. There’s massive electoral rage out there, and he’s channeling that. Nobody wants another career politician, they want someone who is proud of country and will fight for it, and us. Give us a voice who have long been silent. When McLame attacked the rally of supporters, he blasted back, and in every other instance of being attacked by the media or other politicians, he’s fought back and tore them apart, and his popularity is surging because of it. No placating, no apologizing, no “being reasonable”.
The political machines in this country are weak, diseased, and unraveling. We ARE in a time of crisis, and Trump may very well be the one to arise to the occasion. The alternatives are all sorely lacking….
I suspect Farage is the contestant who comes third in Big Brother. He says way too much shit to ever kick him out till the last day, and watching him think he might win is almost as good as his sad face when he loses.
In the end, the worse he is, the more likely a hardy underdog will take it at the last post.
Repruhsentin’ Thanet South, it’s Farage up in yo Garage …
Except that he lost in his own constituency, and isn’t up in your anything at the moment.
The West is nearing the end of its cycle, into the Age of Caesarism. The next crisis is already in the queue, and nations bankrupt of virtues have or will turn to morally bankrupt “great leaders” to lead the self-absorbed masses who will demand sacrifices from “all but me”. What is unique to this cycle, is that we have perfected the science and technologies of mass manipulation, surveillance, enslavement, and slaughter.
An American Caesar, that’s an interesting thought.
The original Caesar was only able to seize power because there was a widespread sentiment that the system of government was benefiting the few and the well-established at the expense of the many, and that the common man had no meaningful recourse for redress through the system. Which sounds a bit like contemporary America.
Whether you’ll vote or not, America will have a female president…
Just as predicted in the movie 24 and the game Call of Duty: Black Ops II….
Unfortunately, you’re correct…
A female president will just further boost the morale of the people but will only end in dissappointment.
I think we need a little more hope. I’ve many “redpill” men these days say that having any kind of hope the current system is too “blue pill”, the truth however is the complete opposite.
The problem is that we see America now and just want to destroy it all and start over, but destroying everything would be the worst possible thing to do. Even some of the worst presidents had somethings that can be used to reshape America to its former glory. We need to look at history and see what they did WRONG not what they did RIGHT.
In today’s culture we chase ammusement and entertainment in serious situations then bitch and moan when things fall apart. Maybe we need to start taking more things seriously, stop with the indifferent “live and let live” attitude and start giving America her moral compass back. America has lost a moral compass and replaced it with psuedo-freedom where our desires old us in bondage.
I want the original American dream which wasn’t vast amounts of wealth and lots of pussy. The TRUE American dream is stability, family, and a comfortable life. As long we men allow our own morals to slide we lose everything. We need a president who will be honest and tell the people that EVERYBODY CAN’T WIN.
I believe it’s time for men to take back America before it gets to far down this depraved rabbit hole.
A very fine point. I worry the ones advocating destruction and rebuilding are taking the easy way out.
My analysis was much too simplistic. The real way is to soldier on with the hard work of self improvement until a significant proprtion of people are not subscribing to the lazy throwaway culture and competing like dogs over scraps.
The recession was a sufficient taster for the more alert of us, but we risk slipping back into comfortable lazy habits and blaming others for our own failings. So we must all get our balls out, earn our own keep, make our own way, and keep it that way.
Then the politicians will be whatever the public are/want, a stand up guy, who gets the job done.
FDR was a tool of the Rockefellers and the other oligarchs. He never worked an honest day’s work in his life, having been gifted everything he ever had. His whole life and career was based on deception and robbing the poor to give to the Super Rich. Even his Warm Springs Health Resort was based on fraud.
SOURCES:
The Strange Death of FDR by Emmanuel Josephson (it is little wonder why that book is out of print)
Wall Street and FDR by Antony Sutton (it is little wonder why Sutton lost his job at the Hoover Institute for writing this and others)
Still following candidates and elections, are you?
Yep, they got you right where they want you.
Given the North had a 4-1 advantage in manpower (I’m not even including the blacks in this count) was an industrialized state (in comparison to the South) and that no European nation even came close to intervening in the war on the side of the Confederacy (despite mythology to the contrary), I’m always surprised it took four years and not four months to defeat the South.
Have to admit to an admiration of the southerners for lasting as long as they did….
A paper disparity that only matters if both sides are equally willing to deploy that strength to achieve victory. The South was united in cause, the North was not. Thus, the South could muster a lot more of its paper strength.
Up until the presidential election of 1864, there was a plausible chance of the political balance of power inside the North of shifting to a state where it would either let the South go, or offer to reform the Union into something the South could agree with and rejoin. If Sherman’s capture of Atlanta hadn’t happened in time to affect the outcome of the 1864 election, Lincoln might well have lost to McClellan who was more conciliatorily disposed towards the South. The price tag of Northern victory was 10% of its military-age male population, a price many might have considered too high and would not have if not for the sunk cost of previous casualties and a reasonable chance of victory in sight.
Not buying it. The North was more united than you let on. The draft riots of ’63, for example, were mostly Irish immigrants misbehaving. Like the North, the South had to introduce conscription. And the 10% casualty rate of the North is less than half the 25% casualty rate the South took.
As for McClellan, now we’re in the realm of counterfactuals. That said, Civil War scholar James M. Mcpherson believes the McClellan would have continued the war against the South (unsurprising, as he would have only been inaugurated in March 1865 when the Confederacy was already pretty much finished).
Unfortunately, providence does seem to be on the side of the big battalions….paper disparity it is not.
Providence is on the side of the big battalions, except in the cases where it isn’t, in which case people have no problem coming up with explanations for the outcome after the fact.
That the South managed to keep fighting until it had suffered a 30% casualty rate and the occupation of its major population centers just shows the extent to which the South was unified in its cause. Such casualty rates had made the North whimper and pull out in no time. There was way more opposition to the war effort in the North than a bunch of draft riots. To keep the war machine rolling with the North united behind it, Lincoln had to flip-flop like Romney, telling the radical republicans that the war was about ending slavery and everyone else that it was just about saving the Union.
True, things are only inevitable after the fact, but when it comes to betting, my recommendation is to go with the stronger side.
In fairness to old Abe, he never flip-flopped on the question of the Union. I personally think his emancipation act was strictly a military measure designed to undermine the South rather than actually free the slaves.
Appreciate your points — thanks.
I’m sorry to sound like I’m attacking you BUT you have no idea what you’re talking. I feel like I’m listening to the Leftist Propaganda..
F. D. R. being a good president??? Are you fucking kidding me???
He was the whole reason that the Great Depression lasted this long. He implemented some of the worst economic policies that the world was ever seen.
Honestly do a bit of research before you talk about how good he was. He was literally one of the top worst US presidents ever.
Here’s a video explaining it in very simple terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta2m3D9Ig0g
I agree he was a bad president good luck convincing our history teachers about this. My biggest beef with him is how he lied to the Americans about how he was going to keep us out of WWII, yet behind the scenes he was doing everything possible to maneuver us into conflict with Germany and Japan.
You can’t convince “The Intelligentsia” because they are paid by The State and they are indoctrinated that political leaders are gods.
And isn’t he doing what every politician has done. Like Obama saying about Obamacare that prices will be lowered and you won’t have to switch your doctor..
Or how the war on terror in the Middle East is only creating more terrorists and dictators and wars and conflicts.
Or how the welfare system is actually making the poor people even poorer.
There’s a rule that anything that the government says they’ll do – the opposite happens.
Cool Austrian story bro.
Bulgar?
as far as i am concerned, zero fucks given how a president makes me feel. granted, i am a german, but universally, politics would thinkably do better if it was less about salesmanship, appearances and moral vanity than sound policies. as far as i am concerned, all a president has to do is have good ideas and be able to bring them to success.
now, you may argue that to succeed, he must make people feel enthusiastic. yes. but can that be a measure for a rational man? hardly. it is a measure for sheep who have better stuff to do then investigate politics.
that said, i respect skillful appearance. obama does this very well. and that should serve as proof that feels mean nothing, because obama made all the most of people feel fantastic with meaningless phrases.
rand paul has an interesting campaign going on about the tax code (chainsaw) and planned parenthood. i find he does it quite well on facebook, but i do not follow the other candidates. that said, who knows how much any candidate can really change once voted. and what other stupid stuff they will do apart from their one great theme.
as far as i am concerned, the president could simply do some good stuff without big fanfare. little improvements that can be slightly felt. he does not have to turn the fucking world around. i have a distaste for catastrophism. what a stupid theatre.
>FDR was a good president
>Actually believing this
I’m all for thinking a crisis is often necessary to motivate someone to get their balls out and crack on. But a truly great leader doesn’t need a crisis to rise up. He’d do just fine any time.
What you’re thinking of is a sociopath. It just so happens that the pitiful public tend to get more rallied behind anyone who looks like they’ll save the day, and the path will do a few great years of work feeding off the glory before he gets too cocky and makes a whole new mess. The really smart ones step down before the shit hits the fan and the next leader is usually blamed for being the fool in office at the time.
Having said that, it requires a completely different type of leader when a country is new and growing. When it reaches apocalypic levels and some serious regrowth is needed and the ‘paths dont want the job, that’s when the real men get the job done.
It will need some serious carnage before the drama circus of modern politics ends.
Trump is doing a lot of damage to the SJW’s and the cucks. This is what I’m excited about. He can help set the stage for the next phase in this war.
I like Trump, but the fact that he let a tranny stay in his Miss(ter) Universe Pageant makes me skeptical
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/19/showbiz/canada-miss-universe-transgender/
Actually that’s a great play by him if he was thinking of the presidency at that point. Look at how fortuitous that was now that the US is in a years long celebration of LGBT. He’ll get votes with something like that but wouldn’t lose any votes (or very few). A completely innocuous situation in a silly pageant is enough for him to fend off whatever hordes of LGBT attackers. Brilliant.
Roissy seems to think Trump would be great.
There are no “Leaders”. If there is one thing those fucks love to drone on about it’s “Leadership”. Everyone is a fucking leader. They were even referring to brand new teenage privates as “Future Leaders” for awhile.
I’ve yet to meet a fucking leader and I supposedly was one; a post command captain. Sure there are a lot of decent managers.
I’m sure their are a few leaders among those who are leading teams into Bin Laden’s compound or kicking in doors in [insert bullshit war here]. But the personnel officer or the supply NCO is no god damn leader.
That goes for CEOs, and politicians too.
America’s media portrayed Bin Laden like a James Bond villain. What a letdown to realize that he lived in a really shabby compound in Pakistan.
Cometh the hour
Cometh the man
Maybe The Don is like a John the Baptist figure presaging the coming political messiah who will save us all.
America needs a General Pinochet willing to send about 100,000 or so of the top feminists, community organizers, leftist professors and SJW’s to the soccer stadium. That would put the fear of god into the rest of them and make them shape up.
This is one of the most poorly written articles I have ever seen on this site, as a daily reader. First off, Lincoln was tyrant, who waged a war of aggression and invasion on the south, when the South merely wished to leave the union, as is the right of every state.
Secondly, FDR was a radical socialist, easily the Obama of his time, he stuck with shit like social security that is still haunting the nation’s finances and dragged the nation into WW2 which provided no compelling interest to the U.S. and merely accomplished enriching the bankers that funded both sides of the war, ie Jews.
Third, Donald Trump is a very serious candidate, he is running to win and will have no problem governing because he is a proven and effective leader that has the genuine desire to help the American people.
Unfortunately, Mr. Trump is a fake. I was an early believer for about 2 solid weeks in his persona because he seemed so refreshing in the way he took on the media and his opponents. Finally someone who tells it like it is! But now I reject him as a mere carnival barker.
The reality is that behind the smooth talking, stand-up-comic act lies a passionate Israel-lover. He is fanatically pro-Israel! Wants to reinforce the American military to bomb the hell out of Iran, etc… More troublingly, his daughter Ivanka converted to Orthodox Judaism and married a Jewish guy; one of his son, Eric, also married a Jew.
It’s significant that none of these information are ever mentioned in the media which is supposedly hostile to Trump.
I urge you Trump-supporters to swallow the red pill and assess this character in an honest way.
Lincoln and FDR were terrible Presidents and were bricks in the road to the problems you complain about now.
Try Warren G Harding for a good President.
“But Trump remains an entertainer, an egoist looking for a platform. His
penchant for glitz and invective is not the stuff that statesmen or good
leaders are made of. He lacks judgment and caution, and these will be
his undoing.”
this is why I like Quintus and why he is one of the best writers and thinkers on this site.
I’m still puzzled at how Trump has been able to become so pesonally successful and build such a vast amount of personal wealth given his awful judgment and lack of caution. I suppose being a risk-taker and throwing caution to the wind, and gambling big can be positive traits for an entrepreneur (when and if they pay off) but those are not necessarily good traits for a leader and statesman.
A lot of people on the manosphere are lauding Trump as some great “alpha male” or what-not.. as if spouting insults and cheap rhetoric has anything to do with good statesmanship and wise leadership. Being a statesman isn’t the same as being an entrepreneur and real-estate mogul. They each require a very different skill-set. While you certainly need confidence and a healthy ego to aspire to be a leader in the first place, good leader puts the needs of his country and people before his own ego.
Running a state’s economy is also more complex than trying to make all the money you can for yourself. Trump may know how to make money for himself.. but that in no way means he understands the complexity of an economy. Tax-cuts for the rich, “trickle-down” economics, “free’ trade” have been the mantra of the conservative and the right-wing establishment and have failed miserably, and only contributed to rising inequality.
Being good at one thing doesn’t make you good at everything.
“Being good at one thing doesn’t make you good at everything.”
another simple wise statement
Yeah, and that dunce we have now is such an economic mastermind, or the dunce we had before him. Economics is not particle physics or rocket science.
Some time ago I heard a radio commentator say that presidential candidates shouldn’t wear 3 piece suits. Instead they should enter the debates and appear in public wearing jumpsuits like the ones that nascar drivers wear, with logos and patches that advertize their sponsors, eg ‘PFIZER’, ‘MONSANTO’, ‘HSBC’, and so on. That way you could see just who’s paying for the candidate that you’re looking at. It would offer a lot more transparency. The pres candidates could model their jumpsuits on stage and do a 360° turn around on the runway to show their sponsor patches from head to toe so that way you could really ‘check them out’.
I don’t care if Trump does not possess statesman like qualities and the erudition and dignity of this great man. It’s folly to think our reality TV show electorate would respond to or respect this great man the author is waiting for. Trump is, in his carnival barking way bringing forth issues that the Republican establishment would never touch:
1) Securing the southern border.
2) Bringing manucturing back to America and exposing the lie of “free trade” which is labor arbitrage.
Behold the billionaire carnival barker. When you own major resorts and skyscrapers in major US cities you are a joke, an “entertainer.” Not at all accomplished like a journalist and online blogger, huh?
At the time of the men listed as great leaders and presidents, America had a common set of values even if they were divided by such things as class, race and nationality.
Everyone agreed America was great and we should aspire to “melt together.” We agreed that putting Americans and America first was of the utmost importance, not negotiating with our enemies or shipping our jobs offshore to squeeze out the last little bit of profit, and because staying “stateside” would subject the money to onerous taxes and the company to onerous regulations, meant to support a class of takers and uphold a “science” that is questionable at best (climate change).
Donald, regardless of his bad hair and boisterous manner,, is a necessary evil to overcome the malaise we were (still are really) in as a people, that has both major political parties working overtime on various components to get us down and divided and keep us that way. Until Donald spoke up, the winking and nudging behind the scenes was going on unabated, while the American people were trying to figure out why their efforts continued to produce fewer and fewer returns. Until Donald put the light on the roach motel that is the establishment Republican and Democrat parties.
If that’s not courageous, I don’t know what is.
Trump is pissing in the punch bowl. It is entertaining to watch the talking heads on CNN grab every tidbit of gossip, rumour and innuendo about Trump. I image the GOP’s “holy fuck” moment when they realized Trump wasn’t going away.
The other two are debatable…. but Roosevelt? That threw me.
The system has been rigged to ensure that no great leader can ever become president. The cultural elites and the feminist state do not want a great leader, not even in a crisis. In fact, much less in a crisis, because they want to use each successive crisis to kill every last vestige of a once great nation.
I also disagree with this article. Trump has a peculiar manner, granted, but I deem it to be genuine, not an affectation.
Trump says he wants to be president so that he get America to be a fucking WINNER again. That’s as red pill as it gets, and I believe him when he says it.
When it comes to FDR, I believe he’s the worst president of all time. His economic policies extended the great depression for ten years, and that’s a fact.
http://www.capx.co/what-did-britain-really-look-like-in-the-1930s/
I am reminded of Francisco Franco. Somewhere out there, already exists a hero
“But give it time. We still haven’t hit rock bottom. People are still too
smug, too self-satisfied, too fat, too happy, and too deluded. And
maybe that’s what it will take. Meaningful reforms can only happen when
there is no other choice. And when the crisis is at hand, then, and only
then, will the man of the hour appear.”
Or we may get a third term out of Der Leader, if he has his way.
This sounds to me like he’s stirring the waters:
“I actually think I’m a pretty good president,” he said. “I think if I ran, I could win. But I can’t.”
And since when has “the law” stopped him?
They probably do unless they are preemptively killed off.
Given that a certain % of young men are leader types (And a smaller % among women)If the personalities are killed off preemptively unless they are evil as well there wont be any great leaders emerging.
An article of great leaders rising up from nothing, in a hostile and broken society that turned against them ago, to lead great masses of people to self-sufficiency and honor once again? And not a single mention of Hitler?
Trump loves to have his ass kissed. He craves being brown nosed. He is beyond mob boss, a title he has transcended with his megla social personna. And if you work for Trump, your work is not solely for the money or about the money. He’ll pay you but the pay is secondary – – saluting the boss comes first. He’ll throw money at his employees so they’ll come to work clean and well fed, lots of money or little money depending on what you’re worth, but primarily it’s about the ass kissing. The money is just so you take a bath and get a nylon or silk suit according to your caste. The money comes, don’t worry, but the ass kissing is the law.
If Trump were elected, from his chair he would run things like it were his empire and you can be sure there would be no room for ‘desk jobbers’ and professional bureaucrats who do nothing as they occupy pricey office space. We could have used Trump in the 70’s, in the place of Carter.
Great leaders emerge from a crisis ? yes I would say so. Please beware that we do not copy 1930’s Germany in our quest for a great leader.
The left has ruined us almost to the point of being desperate enough follow a right wing strongman will ” fix everything” in exchange for the absolute power he needs to ” get things done”.
The idea of the most powerful nation on earth, armed with nuclear weapons, with someone like Hitler or a christian taliban theocrat at the wheel terrifies me.
Well we all have our different opinions . I personally like Donald Trump. Some flaws? Yeah but we all have at least a few. He is super successful and he’s the fuckin President like he said he would be. He doesnt give a shit if everyone likes him but he Does want to fulfill promises he made to his voters. I like the tuy and I think there r good things to learn from his mentality. Sure , maybe not fire back at fat windbag dykes like Rosie — but it depends on who u r j suppose.