Social role determines political role

I think it's true: your abilities and personality determine how you vote. You may be hardwired to be more conservative or more liberal no matter which party you're in, but nature's secret is that those attributes reflect the kind of role in which you're comfortable.

If you've got true leadership potential, meaning that you can go into an unknown situation and figure out a strategy and see it to completion despite unexpected twists and turns, you'll think like a historian when it comes to politics.

If you're a hard working, clear-thinking person, you'll do your best to defend society and always be from the Don't Fix It If It Ain't Broke camp.

But on the other hand if you can't stop spending your money and time on distractions, and therefore are always beneath the wheel, you're going to get defensive and join the It's Not My Fault horde, and want handouts, special permissions, exceptions, etc. on a constant basis because you'll see yourself as the perennial victim.

I bet this applies to music, too, but not musical genre per se (although all nu-metal fans are drones).

From this article which has offended 6,173 people so far.

 

Lol you're using Gandalf as the posterchild for the typical aristocrat? My dude, you are just as delusional as the dude who made that visual.

 

This is very lolz

 

...most of the american aristocracy have trivial liberal arts educations...

so, it's fail already.

 

I'm a radical left-winger ; but a catholic.

I am hard-working and I drink too much. I am educated and very fun. My personality has little do to with how I vote per se, and more so to do with my personal convictions and beliefs - what is fundamentally important to me.

It's interesting to study personalities and voting habits though.

 

America doesn't have an aristocracy.

 

immediate fail.

 

lmao.

so, you really don't pay attention to things, do you?

 

BOLLOCKS

Clearly you have little knowledge of history or experience of life.

And I’ve noticed from your other threads you seem to have little or no ability to defend your ideas.

Winston Churchill was a drunk, Alexander the great was a violent drunk, Caesar was constantly in debt and couldn’t keep his dick to himself.

And the elites have always tried to arrange things so they get the greatest handouts, special permissions, exceptions, etc.

As to hard working and clear-thinking what do you categorise as ‘hard’ work or ‘clear’ thinking? Because I’ve met plenty of lazy and muddle minded people of a conservative frame of mind.

As I’ve said this is just generalised bollocks that seems to be more about you wanting to hear the sound of your own voice than genuine views – it seems to me you don’t seem able to think things through.

 

Great. Well, if you want to guess as to why people don't "defend" their ideas to you, it's this general bigotry of yours -- and inaccuracy.

Good luck.

 

You've still yet to defend your ideas

Though in Caesar's favor, "Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the constitution" -Marcus Cato

And it's believed Caesar was also on the accepting end of a dick, which despite all the bisexuality in ancient Rome, being the submissive one for either gender was looked down on,

Gaul was brought to shame by Caesar
By King Nicomedes he.
Here comes Casesar, wreathed in triumph
For his Gallic victory!
Nicomedes wears no laurels,
Though the greatest of the three

 

Forget defending your ideas to him

they're ridiculous to all of us.

 

I'm waiting for a solid critique. You certainly didn't have one. Now are you gonna one-up and win at internets, or speak some rationality, there, fella?

 

We're waiting for something solid TO critique.

you're just spouting crazy.

Which is funny as hell, and sadly, hasn't been a drop to the dialogue here (which says HORRIBLE things about the politics forum here)

but it doesn't merit effort.

 

C

In what way is it bigoted or inaccurate?

Are you saying these are not gross generalisations, but are instead immutable laws?

And what are they supposedly based on please give us the evidence with which you would back up these assertions?

I can give many examples where elites have arranged things so they get the greatest handouts, special permissions, exceptions, etc, such as pre-revolutionary France.

 

Mad

Yes the rumour that Caesar had lain with the king of Bithynia to gain an alliance with Rome was well known, but although used by enemies to discredit him it didn’t work and the troop’s triumphal song although bawdy were affectionate.

But Caesar like many of his fellow ruling class was a liar, cheat and ruthless back stabber (metaphorically unlike Brutus).

My point being that the idea that leadership has an association with moral fortitude or that clear-sightedness is the prerequisite of the ruling class is misguided if not risible.

Any study of ruling classes, elites, aristocracy or whatever you call them from the Ancient world up to the modern would point this out all too clearly.

 

I see a Republican finally learned Photoshop.