Good or Bad

[FluffyMcDeath]

 

[Dammy]

Lack of emotion but is skilled at charm, manipulation, intimidation and can mimic leadership but pitiful performance of their job. Obama?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Lack of emotion but is skilled at charm, manipulation, intimidation and can mimic leadership but pitiful performance of their job. Obama?

Most of them. In fact, if you feel drawn to vote for them - they're likely a psycho.
The best guys for making the decisions tend to be dismissed as too intellectual. People prefer leaders with shallow affects and glib answers.

 

[Dammy]

Most of them. In fact, if you feel drawn to vote for them - they're likely a psycho.
The best guys for making the decisions tend to be dismissed as too intellectual. People prefer leaders with shallow affects and glib answers.

Typically I find the opposite. I find a lot of the intellectuals have little common sense and live in a fantasy world were their theories actually work. Their arrogance seems to be their self defense mechanism, shielding them from reality that the common man must live in. Those two factors seems to create a fatal out come. I'll keep cheering on common sense coming from people that have a successful track record in life even if they are not ivy league schooled.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Typically I find the opposite.

I know. Because you LIKE what the psychopath can project. Common sensey simplistic answers with confidence. so do lots of people. as I said, the non-psychopaths are often seen as overly intellectual because they appreciate the complexities and understand that they cannot know all the information. Psychopaths have no such qualms because, quite frankly, they don't care. They only care what they can get out of a situation and don't give a damn about you.

 

[faethor]

Typically I find the opposite. I find a lot of the intellectuals have little common sense and live in a fantasy world were their theories actually work. Their arrogance seems to be their self defense mechanism, shielding them from reality that the common man must live in.

I applaud you for putting down the Ayn Rand.

 

[Glaucus]

Most of them. In fact, if you feel drawn to vote for them - they're likely a psycho.
The best guys for making the decisions tend to be dismissed as too intellectual. People prefer leaders with shallow affects and glib answers.

It certainly seems that way. Michael Ignatieff was what I would consider an intellectual and look what happened to him.

 

[Glaucus]

Typically I find the opposite. I find a lot of the intellectuals have little common sense and live in a fantasy world were their theories actually work. Their arrogance seems to be their self defense mechanism, shielding them from reality that the common man must live in. Those two factors seems to create a fatal out come. I'll keep cheering on common sense coming from people that have a successful track record in life even if they are not ivy league schooled.

What you perceive as arrogance is just their lack of charm or even social skills. Fact is, those dummies you do elect often go to the intellectuals for answers to tough questions. The problem is, they don't go to them often enough and hence why they can so easily {bleep} up the simple tasks.

 

[Dammy]

I know. Because you LIKE what the psychopath can project. Common sensey simplistic answers with confidence. so do lots of people. as I said, the non-psychopaths are often seen as overly intellectual because they appreciate the complexities and understand that they cannot know all the information. Psychopaths have no such qualms because, quite frankly, they don't care. They only care what they can get out of a situation and don't give a damn about you.

It's the opposite, the psychopaths will make up stuff that is complicated and therefore uneasy to challenge. If they were basing it on basic stuff, they would have to defend their positions which they don't want to do. Their end goal is all about control, to have that, they have to demand more (centralize) control. That's the key right there, they want control, if their plan is to give away control downwards by giving it lower positions so they can control more things locally, the less chance it's a Psychopath.

Or can you show in history a true Psychopath political leader that butchered so many of his own people while diluting his own authority and down to state/county/city levels?

 

[Dammy]

What you perceive as arrogance is just their lack of charm or even social skills. Fact is, those dummies you do elect often go to the intellectuals for answers to tough questions. The problem is, they don't go to them often enough and hence why they can so easily {bleep} up the simple tasks.

Yet we see the opposite in the current US regime. He went heavily on academia intellectuals (who never ran a company) to run the US economy, and they have grossly failed. Even more horrific, he wants to double down on the original mistake made by those academia intellectuals who promised him that their plans couldn't fail.

Which is perfectly fine for the Global Elites, it's moving along in their long term plan as they hoped. Now if they can only get the Arab Spring back into fast pace again to match the EURO's pace of collapse.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

It's the opposite, the psychopaths will make up stuff that is complicated and therefore uneasy to challenge.

No. I think you are thinking of crazy people. Psychopaths have the same sort of intelligence distribution as the general population and it is the rare exception indeed who could make up some convoluted unchallengable justification and even rarer to find one that would bother. What psychopaths are good at is simple lying. They don't have normal empathetic feelings so don't mind telling a lie that will hurt someone else (especially if it's someone who maybe doesn't fall for their stories any more), and they don't have fear of discovery nor shame if they are called out on a lie. Their greatest talent is their ability to look you straight in the eye and deliver a stream of unmitigated bullshit, but if you tell them that it simply isn't true (and can show them that you know why) then they will just change over to a new line of bullshit. It isn't that they have complex stories, it's just that they can tell them well and then change over to tell one they thing you might be more likely to swallow if the current one isn't working.

They tend to stay away from overly complicated stories because a) they are hard to make up and b) people don't respond well to complicated. They like simple.

"We were attacked because they hate our freedoms" is the sort of baloney a psychopath is likely to deliver because he understands people's hot buttons and desire for simple answers that displace blame."

If they were basing it on basic stuff, they would have to defend their positions which they don't want to do.

You'd be surprised how few people ask questions. People will hear what they want to hear even if its not what you said.

Their end goal is all about control,

Their end goal is about satisfying self interest. They generally don't have grand plans for humanity, but of course, they are happy to sit on the board of a charity if they get to travel, meet movie stars and run generous expense accounts. But it's not because they love the little children, or anything.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Yet we see the opposite in the current US regime. He went heavily on academia intellectuals (who never ran a company) to run the US economy, and they have grossly failed.

Unlike the last regime when the supreme court chose a president who had never NOT run a company into the ground. And of this current regimes "ivory tower intellectuals", many seem to have come from Goldman Sachs, a very successful company, thank you very much.

 

[Dammy]

Unlike the last regime when the supreme court chose a president who had never NOT run a company into the ground. And of this current regimes "ivory tower intellectuals", many seem to have come from Goldman Sachs, a very successful company, thank you very much.

No, you are confusing his Global Elitist lacky at Treasury for his economic advisers:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/07/nation/la-na-0607-goolsbee-quitting-20110607

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-06/07/c_13914640.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/romer-says-her-white-house-departure-long-planned

Notice they are returning to academia and not real world jobs?

If Goldman Sachs is so successful then why the Billions of dollars of bailouts? http://the-classic-liberal.com/aig-goldman-sachs-bailout/

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

If Goldman Sachs is so successful then why the Billions of dollars of bailouts?

Getting suckers to take the wrong side of bets IS their business. At this they have been very successful. Noticed how the executives are still getting fat bonuses? That is the sole measure of success.