Italian political writer Niccolo Machiavelli's The Price is one of the most powerful discussions of politics during the Italian Renaissance. Machiavelli wrote the book to offer practical advice to Italian nobles. The book reflects the way he thought that government actually worked, rather than the lofty, often unrealistic ideals expressed by others. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should be concerned only with power and success. Today, The Prince is considered a portrayal of how leaders often have to act ruthlessly. 1) Think about Machiavelli's ideas on political leadership. Is he right? Is he wrong? Should we expect our political leaders to always be virtuous as well as effective? Which is more important in a leader, virtue or effectiveness? Why? Write an essay explaining your answers to these questions. ( Please only answer if you truly know how to answer the question). Need to get a very good grade on this. Will Mark Brainliest to whomever answers correctly.

Explanation:The book the Prince by Machiavelli provides a wide variety of characters a prince should embody as well as his behaviors to be hardliner, to be feared instead of loved if he cannot be both, to be evil if something forces him to be, “for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil”. He remarks that a prince should be cruel rather than merciful, stingy instead of generous; he also advocates that it is better to break promises if those promises are against one´s interest. So, if I consider this features Machiavelli depicts and affirms a political leader should have, I must say that he is wrong and I do not agree with him. A political leader, I mean a president in our modern democratic societies cannot be a person who chooses deception instead of loyalty to the electorate who voted for him upholding his ideas. A president cannot prefer being feared and cruel in his words or actiosn as it could give way to great disasters if a society feels threatened and deceived by its own leader. So, to the best of my knowledge a leader should be virtuous if we define this term as piety, generosity, compassion. That is to say, a leader should be led by those characteristics when playing an effective role for the common good of the citizens of the country he rules. He should achieve the goals set guided by virtue. Otherwise, a president or any leader should not be effective or lead and effective administration by implementing tough measures that could result in a popular dissatisfaction. Consequentially, I think that effectiveness of policies, measures, and any decision made by a politician should go hand in hand with virtue, given the fact that virtue is more important when guiding a society

since most of current immigration into the u.s., both legal and illegal, is coming from latin america. it would be very difficult to imagine or rationalize a country my fellow citizens are trying desperately to flee into, would pose a threat to my prosperity or freedom. since the u.s. has a long history of intervention, but no record of permanent occupation, i would not feel oppression is the main objective.  

the largest free trade nation, along with the largest gdp in the world wanting to expand it's economic policy on us, and including us, could only be positive. the u.s. government has no interest in, or way of simply forcing american culture on us. and has no track record of it. other nations that adopted american social culture, or "americanization" did so voluntarily, mainly through the choice of allowing american businesses and u.s. citizens to come into their nations, as free operatives.

it was displayed because they had a love for war