You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Schreiber ago  (edited ago)

I'm assuming that "losing" implies handing power over to women and gay men. Is there room for meritocracy under your system for these groups, or are they to be barred from leadership of any kind? If so, I'll need some reason for this requirement, especially assuming that at the very least, some individuals within these groups will be more competent than their heterosexual, male peers, on average.

Here's the fact. Giving women and gay men powers, despite how competent they are, tend to move political spectrum to the left and will result in the genocide of this "compromised" weak culture (eg. progressive western) by the more alpha traditional culture (eg. muslims, spics, and niggers).

Here's the thing, there would always be heterosexual male competent enough to lead a country. Case study would be Asia. The best countries in Asia are very much male-dominated. South Korea gave power to a woman, and it fucks them hard. Philliphines, Indonesia, Thailand, etc are all fucked by elected "women" president. One day if Japan/China/Singapore gave power to a woman or a faggot or effeminate beta like Trudeau the country WILL go down hill for sure.

Every single of these "female" leaders in Asia are all fucking terrible. Ancient Chinese dynasties ALWAYS get fucked when a woman took power. In fact there's a saying about this as well. Not all straight male would make the best nation's leader, but any other alternative is guaranteed to be a terrible choice. Like literally, extreme disaster such as Hillary and Merkel.

Straight males who believe in politically wrong right-wing ideologies tend to be a good choice to elect. Like Trump. Like Orban. Like Xi Jinping. and even Bibi.

0
0

[–] intrepiddemise ago 

You've established that you think hetero men are more competent leaders than women and gay men. I would ask for proof, but you'd probably just throw more anecdotal evidence my way, so I'll ask again what I asked before: if some women and gay men are better leaders than average, and assuming they are right-leaning (though not authoritarians), would you still deny them leadership positions? If so, why? Your argument is that being gay or female somehow makes someone left-leaning. If you're talking about averages, left-leaning politics might be correlated (not causal) with gender and sexual preference. That doesn't mean there aren't competent, right-leaning women and gay men who want to be leaders. If ideology is the issue, then why deny a giant swath of people based upon gender and sexual preference, rather than on ideology?

What qualifies as "good" leadership to you? Authoritarian leadership? Why? Have you ever lived under an authoritarian dictatorship? Ever known anyone who has? If not, you might want to rethink your priorities. Your heterosexual, male Asian leaders (Xi Jinping, Duterte, Aung San Suu Kyi, etc) care about personal power and prestige, not the people. They use nationalist tropes and arguments to legitimize their personal goals. God forbid you happen to be in their way...that's how you end up dead or in a forced labor camp.

I'm also still waiting for a citation backing up your earlier claim that the U.S. was still executing gays and "whores" in the 1950s.

0
0

[–] Schreiber ago  (edited ago)

I'm also still waiting for a citation backing up your earlier claim that the U.S. was still executing gays and "whores" in the 1950s.

I never said that. That was the other guy.

You've established that you think hetero men are more competent leaders than women and gay men. I would ask for proof, but you'd probably just throw more anecdotal evidence my way

How do you prove that? Just look at every female/fag leaders in history and today's world. They are all disastrous.

That doesn't mean there aren't competent, right-leaning women and gay men

If they are right-leaning they wouldn't push for leadership position. Right-wing ideologies are about traditional societal roles, women are not made into president, they take care of the house and kids first and foremost. Faggots... they either stay in the closet and don't ask for "rights", or they can go to mental institution or get executed, their choice.

What qualifies as "good" leadership to you?

For starters, do not import rapefugees or treat illegals like kangz.

care about personal power and prestige, not the people.

Dude, you just described leftard leaders who are too busy virtue signaling while letting their citizens get fucked by third-worlders. I find it hilarious when the left say Putin, Jinping, Trump etc not caring about people when they aren't the ones importing rapefugees to rape their citizens. For all of these right-wing leaders flaw, at the very least they have the conscience to not import terrorists who groom little girls in their country.

They use nationalist tropes

Treating illegals like illegals and rapefugees like rapefugees is not "tropes," it's your fucking job as a leader. If you can't do that shit then you are a disaster to your country.