Your Favorite Modern Day Political Leader(s)

[Greater Mackonia]

Putin is the only leader in the world today with the spine to deny the nauseatingly self-righteous moraline drivel that is 'international law' and is leading the way for a new, pragmatic, innovative, post-moral politics. The only reason he is demonised is because the so-called 'leaders' of the West are cowardly democratic sheep terrified of even a shot of ambition. He is a pragmatist and that is what I like. You say 'invaded Ukraine' like it was a bad thing-it was an excellently planned and executed invasion and cunning political move which finally undermined the toxic slumber gripping Europe. Suppresses journalism? Any sensible leader does. Human rights do not exist.

On the matter of LGBT rights that is the one major area of disagreement I have with him. However it is obvious the man has no genuine quarrel with homosexuals and is only doing it as a cunning political tactic to win the conservative vote-chattel to gain time to finally do away with the farce that is Democracy.

I never said I liked or admired the man, he is just the best possible alternative to the gang of insipid, incompetent, feeble-minded hypocrites that are praised in the west today. It is truly a symptom of the utter degeneracy of our times that healthy ambition and self-interest are demonised and condemned.

You call invading a country pragmatic? That's not pragmatic, nor is it innovative, it's reckless. It threatens the safety of the world, and kills people. How the fuck is that a positive thing? It's as if you like Putin because you have an irrational hatred of the West and a irrational love of war.

Why should Putin care about the safety of the world? He is the Premier of Russia, not the head of the Red Cross, a good leader does not care for the safety of the world, he must practice the loftiest and most stringent levels of selfishness. People die, they may as well die for a political genius.

I do not love war, I do however recognise its importance in the grand cycle of history, there is nothing irrational about that. My hatred of the west is one largely terminological, that it is merely the degenerate form of what was once limited to "Europe", a sign of American dominance over Europe-that is why I dislike the term 'the West'.

[Capsland]

Does the Queen count? If so then The Queen! I quite like her
If she doesn't then, Merkel, see seems like a good leader

[Fortschritte]

You call invading a country pragmatic? That's not pragmatic, nor is it innovative, it's reckless. It threatens the safety of the world, and kills people. How the fuck is that a positive thing? It's as if you like Putin because you have an irrational hatred of the West and a irrational love of war.

Why should Putin care about the safety of the world? He is the Premier of Russia, not the head of the Red Cross, a good leader does not care for the safety of the world. People die, they may as well die for a political genius.

I do not love war, I do however recognise its importance in the grand cycle of history, there is nothing irrational about that. My hatred of the west is one largely terminological, that it is merely the degenerate form of what was once limited to "Europe", a sign of American dominance over Europe-that is why I dislike the term 'the West'.

It deeply saddens me to hear someone say that it's alright for people to die if they die for a figure you like. You clearly do not care about the impact war has on human life, and it's rather pathetic. Furthermore, your view of Putin as some infallible leader is childish.

[Xerusia]

Kim Jong Un definitely, Bashar Al Assad, Jammeh and Niyazov.

[Fortschritte]

Kim Jong Un definitely, Bashar Al Assad, Jammeh and Niyazov.

I'm fairly certain that you're kidding.

[Greater Mackonia]

Why should Putin care about the safety of the world? He is the Premier of Russia, not the head of the Red Cross, a good leader does not care for the safety of the world. People die, they may as well die for a political genius.

I do not love war, I do however recognise its importance in the grand cycle of history, there is nothing irrational about that. My hatred of the west is one largely terminological, that it is merely the degenerate form of what was once limited to "Europe", a sign of American dominance over Europe-that is why I dislike the term 'the West'.

It deeply saddens me to hear someone say that it's alright for people to die if they die for a figure you like. You clearly do not care about the impact war has on human life, and it's rather pathetic. Furthermore, your view of Putin as some infallible leader is childish.

Throw insults all you like, compassion has no place in politics.

As I have said numerous times I do not believe he is infallible. His populism repels me, his appeal to the Russian Orthodox-Conservative right disgusts me, his cronyism is a sign of incompetence and will be his undoing, he has failed to seriously tackle corruption in Russia, while I approve of the act of invading the Crimea as a symbolic attack upon the altruistic moral-political order it was poorly carried out and his management of the fallout has been sluggish. Vladimir Putin is still a very, very long way from my ideal political leader. It is merely a sign of desperation that I turn to him, not admiration.

[Sebastianbourg]

Kim Jong Un definitely, Bashar Al Assad, Jammeh and Niyazov.

I'm fairly certain that you're kidding.

Most-certainly.

[New Kvenland]

Merkel's good. Don't know of any major US politicians I like... The representative from my district, he's not half bad.

[Yuketobaniac]

Most modern political leaders are currupt, but if you mean not presidentt. id'e say rand paul and mitt romney

[The Cold Place]

You call invading a country pragmatic? That's not pragmatic, nor is it innovative, it's reckless. It threatens the safety of the world, and kills people. How the fuck is that a positive thing? It's as if you like Putin because you have an irrational hatred of the West and a irrational love of war.

Why should Putin care about the safety of the world? He is the Premier of Russia, not the head of the Red Cross, a good leader does not care for the safety of the world, he must practice the loftiest and most stringent levels of selfishness. People die, they may as well die for a political genius.

I do not love war, I do however recognise its importance in the grand cycle of history, there is nothing irrational about that. My hatred of the west is one largely terminological, that it is merely the degenerate form of what was once limited to "Europe", a sign of American dominance over Europe-that is why I dislike the term 'the West'.

The simplistic answer to this question is that he should care about the safety of the world because Russia has nukes, and the US have nukes, and all the nukes are literally pointed towards one another. This is, of course, outside the moralistic droll we hear about caring for others.

The more complex answer is found in diplomacy, and involves such things as Russian gas, Afghan opium, and sanctions.

[Calimera II]

Very true, and I absolutely think that's positive. However, we must make a difference between 'just spending money' and a 'long-term investment'. I am not sure whether it was really an investment.



But so did Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, and do you like her?

No, because she's corrupt,

Something that hasn't been proven yet whatsoever. Of course, it sounds somewhat logical to assume that Nestor Kirchner was corrupt due to the fact that millions of dollars disappeared when he was governor of the Santa Cruz province, but that hasn't been proved either. I don't think Cristina is as corrupt as the media says. The American Task Force Argentina has become very good in 'Cristina bashing' and 'Argentina bashing', they continuously write stuff for western newspapers and lobby against Argentina.

and because of her numerous failed economic policies.

Numerous is exaggerated. Generally I disagree with her on economic issues, but the fact is that the vulture funds/holdouts have been 'Argentina's cancer.'

But, Mujica hasn't been corrupt,

But a Uruguayan Minister and friend of Mujica has been corrupt. Uruguay isn't 'corruption free': Yesterday, the Uruguayan court indicted -without imprisonment- the former Minister of Economy and the current president of the State Bank of the Republic, Minister Fernando Lorenzo, for abuse of office in a case related to bankruptcy in 2012 the state airline Pluna.

and Uruguay has seen it's economy grow pretty rapidly under his tenure.

So has Argentina's economy. And the accumulated growth in percentages is bigger than that of Uruguay.

[Greater Mackonia]

Why should Putin care about the safety of the world? He is the Premier of Russia, not the head of the Red Cross, a good leader does not care for the safety of the world, he must practice the loftiest and most stringent levels of selfishness. People die, they may as well die for a political genius.

I do not love war, I do however recognise its importance in the grand cycle of history, there is nothing irrational about that. My hatred of the west is one largely terminological, that it is merely the degenerate form of what was once limited to "Europe", a sign of American dominance over Europe-that is why I dislike the term 'the West'.

The simplistic answer to this question is that he should care about the safety of the world because Russia has nukes, and the US have nukes, and all the nukes are literally pointed towards one another. This is, of course, outside the moralistic droll we hear about caring for others.

The more complex answer is found in diplomacy, and involves such things as Russian gas, Afgan opium, and sanctions.

You are still fundamentally giving reasons of self-interest,global safety is considered only out of concern to Russian interests.

[Camelza]

It deeply saddens me to hear someone say that it's alright for people to die if they die for a figure you like. You clearly do not care about the impact war has on human life, and it's rather pathetic. Furthermore, your view of Putin as some infallible leader is childish.

Throw insults all you like, compassion has no place in politics.

As I have said numerous times I do not believe he is infallible. His populism repels me, his appeal to the Russian Orthodox-Conservative right disgusts me, his cronyism is a sign of incompetence and will be his undoing, he has failed to seriously tackle corruption in Russia, while I approve of the act of invading the Crimea as a symbolic attack upon the altruistic moral-political order it was poorly carried out and his management of the fallout has been sluggish. Vladimir Putin is still a very, very long way from my ideal political leader. It is merely a sign of desperation that I turn to him, not admiration.

There are many, many more political leaders who aren't actually hurting people as we speak that you would agree with in more policies, but no, you had to go for the 21st century reincarnation of Ivan the Terrible, simply because he is anti-west.
This enemy mine logic is saying much about your set of ideals.

[Greater Mackonia]

Throw insults all you like, compassion has no place in politics.

As I have said numerous times I do not believe he is infallible. His populism repels me, his appeal to the Russian Orthodox-Conservative right disgusts me, his cronyism is a sign of incompetence and will be his undoing, he has failed to seriously tackle corruption in Russia, while I approve of the act of invading the Crimea as a symbolic attack upon the altruistic moral-political order it was poorly carried out and his management of the fallout has been sluggish. Vladimir Putin is still a very, very long way from my ideal political leader. It is merely a sign of desperation that I turn to him, not admiration.

There are many, many more political leaders who aren't actually hurting people as we speak that you would agree with in more policies, but no, you had to go for the 21st century reincarnation of Ivan the Terrible, simply because he is anti-west.
This enemy mine logic is saying much about your set of ideals.

What? I am really not anti-west in the sense I think you are talking about.

I can assure you there are very few other leaders who I agree with on policies...Lee Kuan Yew was about as close any politician came in agreement to me and even then it was only faint.

[The Cold Place]

The simplistic answer to this question is that he should care about the safety of the world because Russia has nukes, and the US have nukes, and all the nukes are literally pointed towards one another. This is, of course, outside the moralistic droll we hear about caring for others.

The more complex answer is found in diplomacy, and involves such things as Russian gas, Afgan opium, and sanctions.

You are still fundamentally giving reasons of self-interest,global safety is considered only out of concern to Russian interests.

Psychological egoism is a classic.

For example, take political aid to Africa: is it given because we care about Africa, or is it given to buy influence in African politics for gain? We will never know.

But Psychological egoism does provide a reason to care about what happens in the rest of the world...

[Greater Mackonia]

You are still fundamentally giving reasons of self-interest,global safety is considered only out of concern to Russian interests.

Psychological egoism is a classic.

For example, take political aid to Africa: is it given because we care about Africa, or is it given to buy influence in African politics for gain? We will never know.

But Psychological egoism does provide a reason to care about what happens in the rest of the world...

It is given because the well off in the west wish to allay their irrational feelings of guilt with token symbolism to imitate sympathy, another product of the false-altruistic pseudo-Christian moral code which is ruining Europe.

[The Cold Place]

Throw insults all you like, compassion has no place in politics.

As I have said numerous times I do not believe he is infallible. His populism repels me, his appeal to the Russian Orthodox-Conservative right disgusts me, his cronyism is a sign of incompetence and will be his undoing, he has failed to seriously tackle corruption in Russia, while I approve of the act of invading the Crimea as a symbolic attack upon the altruistic moral-political order it was poorly carried out and his management of the fallout has been sluggish. Vladimir Putin is still a very, very long way from my ideal political leader. It is merely a sign of desperation that I turn to him, not admiration.

There are many, many more political leaders who aren't actually hurting people as we speak that you would agree with in more policies, but no, you had to go for the 21st century reincarnation of Ivan the Terrible, simply because he is anti-west.
This enemy mine logic is saying much about your set of ideals.

Putin is more Elvis than Ivan the terrible. He has much less power politically than Obama in the world, but is able to successfully posture himself as being more powerful in the press due to effective PR.

He is a bit like Bush, but with more hollywood added to his antics.

[MERIZoC]

Most modern political leaders are currupt, but if you mean not presidentt. id'e say rand paul and mitt romney

Mitt Romney isn't a political leader.

[Bythyrona]

Bernie frickin' Sanders is the bomb and I'd like to see him become president.

I'd vote for President Sanders.

+1

If he can he dodge questions as well as he did tacklers, he'd win the job.

[The Cold Place]

Psychological egoism is a classic.

For example, take political aid to Africa: is it given because we care about Africa, or is it given to buy influence in African politics for gain? We will never know.

But Psychological egoism does provide a reason to care about what happens in the rest of the world...

It is given because the well off in the west wish to allay their irrational feelings of guilt with token symbolism to imitate sympathy, another product of the false-altruistic pseudo-Christian moral code which is ruining Europe.

Your statement is irrational: the "pseudo-Christian moral code..ruining Europe" would have to be similar to whatever other belief system they had previously.

Also, I neglected to point out that the idea of philosophical egoism is non-falsifiable in philosophy; I cannot either prove or disprove that people want aid to Africa out of guilt or out of altruism.

There are also other more complex problems with the idea, such as when it becomes a circular argument.

[Xerusia]

Kim Jong Un definitely, Bashar Al Assad, Jammeh and Niyazov.

I'm fairly certain that you're kidding.

Fine, I'll admit. Jammeh does have an annoying name and he is a bit wierd. Niyazov is sooper hawt tho!!!

[Socialist Tera]

Raul Castro, my list is done.

[Xerusia]

Raul Castro, my list is done.

Don't forgot good ol' Che Guevara!

[Socialist Tera]

Raul Castro, my list is done.

Don't forgot good ol' Che Guevara!

Che Guevara is dead. I thought we were talking about 21st century leaders.

[Arcturus Novus]

I'd say Madiba, but he died. Merkel and Mujica are my favorite living politicians.