Quote:
Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
precisely, same as Rome was before Caesar took over executive powers from the Senate.
The Roman government wasn't delivering the hope and change that the provincial governments wanted. The people got sick of the political lines we hear today in 2016 back over 2,000 years ago.
History repeats. To have a powerful president you have to SEIZE the day, SEIZE the power to enact change. CAESAR was not about having seizures, that's just liberal historian bullshit. In the lands outside of Rome he was called the SEIZAR, the title meant "All-powerful, the one who seizes". Each new leader would take on the title of Caesar, as in "I am the Caesar".
They recognized it takes powerful men to create powerful change, and so his name became an actual title to bestow upon people worthy of such recognition.
|
It's important to note that the president is not a dictator. Caesar was. The qualities you need to be a successful dictator are a lot different than the qualities you need to be a successful president. (note how difficult "success" might be to define here).
The qualities to be a good dictator are actually a lot more similar to the qualities it takes to be a good CEO. Given Donald's background, you can see why a lot of people thinks he honestly has the wrong idea of how to lead.
FDR, whatever you think about his politics, was the most successful at getting the most though. But he elected under conditions that are extremely uncommon -- someone like him couldn't even exist today for a whole shitload of cultural reasons I won't get into. But even he had to deal with the courts shutting down half his agenda.