Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

What's your idea of the POTUS?

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 2:08:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Clearly, many of our conversations regarding Trump and his qualifications to be president are just exercises in talking past each other. I'd like to attempt a more productive discussion by starting with the very basics. What exactly is it that you think the president does? What do you believe are the skills, knowledge level, principals, character traits, etc necessary to succeed in this position, and more importantly... why do you believe any of the things you mention are necessary?

Please do not respond with "I think a president should be [insert everything you do not like about Clinton]". That's pointless. I think another way to think of this question would be to envision yourself as an employer conducting job interviews for the POTUS... What would be the type of questions you would ask, and what would you look for in the candidates you sit down with?
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 2:13:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I have seen him say " you're fired " many times, and his does that well. We need someone to go to Washington and do that a few hundred times.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 6:27:35 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:08:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
Clearly, many of our conversations regarding Trump and his qualifications to be president are just exercises in talking past each other. I'd like to attempt a more productive discussion by starting with the very basics. What exactly is it that you think the president does? What do you believe are the skills, knowledge level, principals, character traits, etc necessary to succeed in this position, and more importantly... why do you believe any of the things you mention are necessary?

Please do not respond with "I think a president should be [insert everything you do not like about Clinton]". That's pointless. I think another way to think of this question would be to envision yourself as an employer conducting job interviews for the POTUS... What would be the type of questions you would ask, and what would you look for in the candidates you sit down with?

The President had better have a set of balls the size of China. Every President who ever actually ever did anything or had to protect this country, had nevrves of still. Hillary will destroy this nation because she isn't mentally tough. She's proven to be a coward over and over and over. The only way to bring out Clinton's spine is to bring out her sociopathic temperment to the point she assassinates you as she has many now. Fuc* her.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 6:33:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:08:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
Clearly, many of our conversations regarding Trump and his qualifications to be president are just exercises in talking past each other. I'd like to attempt a more productive discussion by starting with the very basics. What exactly is it that you think the president does? What do you believe are the skills, knowledge level, principals, character traits, etc necessary to succeed in this position, and more importantly... why do you believe any of the things you mention are necessary?

Please do not respond with "I think a president should be [insert everything you do not like about Clinton]". That's pointless. I think another way to think of this question would be to envision yourself as an employer conducting job interviews for the POTUS... What would be the type of questions you would ask, and what would you look for in the candidates you sit down with?

A POTUS has to be smart and level headed. These are the key components. The shear number and complexities of issues that make it to his (or her) desk boggles the mind. A POTUS must be able to draw on a diverse knowledge base and use clam reason to make the final decision on any action.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 8:05:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 6:27:35 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/6/2016 2:08:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
Clearly, many of our conversations regarding Trump and his qualifications to be president are just exercises in talking past each other. I'd like to attempt a more productive discussion by starting with the very basics. What exactly is it that you think the president does? What do you believe are the skills, knowledge level, principals, character traits, etc necessary to succeed in this position, and more importantly... why do you believe any of the things you mention are necessary?

Please do not respond with "I think a president should be [insert everything you do not like about Clinton]". That's pointless. I think another way to think of this question would be to envision yourself as an employer conducting job interviews for the POTUS... What would be the type of questions you would ask, and what would you look for in the candidates you sit down with?

The President had better have a set of balls the size of China. Every President who ever actually ever did anything or had to protect this country, had nevrves of still. Hillary will destroy this nation because she isn't mentally tough. She's proven to be a coward over and over and over. The only way to bring out Clinton's spine is to bring out her sociopathic temperment to the point she assassinates you as she has many now. Fuc* her.

Isn't mentally tough? Now you're sounding like Trump. I was aiming for a higher level of discourse.

Please explain what "mentally tough" means to you, why this is the only trait you bothered to list when discussing what is important in a president, and how you figure that this trait applies to Trump and not Clinton. Thanks.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 8:26:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 8:05:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 6:27:35 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/6/2016 2:08:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
Clearly, many of our conversations regarding Trump and his qualifications to be president are just exercises in talking past each other. I'd like to attempt a more productive discussion by starting with the very basics. What exactly is it that you think the president does? What do you believe are the skills, knowledge level, principals, character traits, etc necessary to succeed in this position, and more importantly... why do you believe any of the things you mention are necessary?

Please do not respond with "I think a president should be [insert everything you do not like about Clinton]". That's pointless. I think another way to think of this question would be to envision yourself as an employer conducting job interviews for the POTUS... What would be the type of questions you would ask, and what would you look for in the candidates you sit down with?

The President had better have a set of balls the size of China. Every President who ever actually ever did anything or had to protect this country, had nevrves of still. Hillary will destroy this nation because she isn't mentally tough. She's proven to be a coward over and over and over. The only way to bring out Clinton's spine is to bring out her sociopathic temperment to the point she assassinates you as she has many now. Fuc* her.

Isn't mentally tough? Now you're sounding like Trump. I was aiming for a higher level of discourse.

Please explain what "mentally tough" means to you, why this is the only trait you bothered to list when discussing what is important in a president, and how you figure that this trait applies to Trump and not Clinton. Thanks.

Has a conscience about killing people. She kills with no conscience. Or are you too young to remember all the disgusting things this jerk off has done like Chinagate and Waco?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 8:33:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 8:26:36 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/6/2016 8:05:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 6:27:35 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/6/2016 2:08:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
Clearly, many of our conversations regarding Trump and his qualifications to be president are just exercises in talking past each other. I'd like to attempt a more productive discussion by starting with the very basics. What exactly is it that you think the president does? What do you believe are the skills, knowledge level, principals, character traits, etc necessary to succeed in this position, and more importantly... why do you believe any of the things you mention are necessary?

Please do not respond with "I think a president should be [insert everything you do not like about Clinton]". That's pointless. I think another way to think of this question would be to envision yourself as an employer conducting job interviews for the POTUS... What would be the type of questions you would ask, and what would you look for in the candidates you sit down with?

The President had better have a set of balls the size of China. Every President who ever actually ever did anything or had to protect this country, had nevrves of still. Hillary will destroy this nation because she isn't mentally tough. She's proven to be a coward over and over and over. The only way to bring out Clinton's spine is to bring out her sociopathic temperment to the point she assassinates you as she has many now. Fuc* her.

Isn't mentally tough? Now you're sounding like Trump. I was aiming for a higher level of discourse.

Please explain what "mentally tough" means to you, why this is the only trait you bothered to list when discussing what is important in a president, and how you figure that this trait applies to Trump and not Clinton. Thanks.

Has a conscience about killing people. She kills with no conscience. Or are you too young to remember all the disgusting things this jerk off has done like Chinagate and Waco?

I seem to remember Hillary Clinton being the first lady at the time of Waco.

You know what, never mind. I'm not interested in why you blame Hillary Clinton for Waco Texas, that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

If you intend to share your thoughts about what the President of the United States actually does, and what we actually need in the person who holds this position then please derail someone else's thread. Thanks.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 8:50:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 8:33:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 8:26:36 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/6/2016 8:05:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 6:27:35 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/6/2016 2:08:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
Clearly, many of our conversations regarding Trump and his qualifications to be president are just exercises in talking past each other. I'd like to attempt a more productive discussion by starting with the very basics. What exactly is it that you think the president does? What do you believe are the skills, knowledge level, principals, character traits, etc necessary to succeed in this position, and more importantly... why do you believe any of the things you mention are necessary?

Please do not respond with "I think a president should be [insert everything you do not like about Clinton]". That's pointless. I think another way to think of this question would be to envision yourself as an employer conducting job interviews for the POTUS... What would be the type of questions you would ask, and what would you look for in the candidates you sit down with?

The President had better have a set of balls the size of China. Every President who ever actually ever did anything or had to protect this country, had nevrves of still. Hillary will destroy this nation because she isn't mentally tough. She's proven to be a coward over and over and over. The only way to bring out Clinton's spine is to bring out her sociopathic temperment to the point she assassinates you as she has many now. Fuc* her.

Isn't mentally tough? Now you're sounding like Trump. I was aiming for a higher level of discourse.

Please explain what "mentally tough" means to you, why this is the only trait you bothered to list when discussing what is important in a president, and how you figure that this trait applies to Trump and not Clinton. Thanks.

Has a conscience about killing people. She kills with no conscience. Or are you too young to remember all the disgusting things this jerk off has done like Chinagate and Waco?

I seem to remember Hillary Clinton being the first lady at the time of Waco.

You know what, never mind. I'm not interested in why you blame Hillary Clinton for Waco Texas, that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

If you intend to share your thoughts about what the President of the United States actually does, and what we actually need in the person who holds this position then please derail someone else's thread. Thanks.

It's not me that blames her. It's her former staff. Link below.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 10:12:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:08:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
Clearly, many of our conversations regarding Trump and his qualifications to be president are just exercises in talking past each other. I'd like to attempt a more productive discussion by starting with the very basics. What exactly is it that you think the president does? What do you believe are the skills, knowledge level, principals, character traits, etc necessary to succeed in this position, and more importantly... why do you believe any of the things you mention are necessary?

Please do not respond with "I think a president should be [insert everything you do not like about Clinton]". That's pointless. I think another way to think of this question would be to envision yourself as an employer conducting job interviews for the POTUS... What would be the type of questions you would ask, and what would you look for in the candidates you sit down with?

A qualified president has full knowledge of how the government works, knows how to make informed decisions, and respects individual rights.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 10:17:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
My idea of a POTUS is one that simply takes polls of the people, and works to achieve the goals of 51% of the people.

If a president can't be trusted to follow the will of the people, and there exists obviously no checks for it, as Hillary has shown with her ongoing manipulation of the FBI, then the people have lost the presidency.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 10:18:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 6:33:01 PM, TBR wrote:

A POTUS has to be smart and level headed. These are the key components. The shear number and complexities of issues that make it to his (or her) desk boggles the mind. A POTUS must be able to draw on a diverse knowledge base and use clam reason to make the final decision on any action.

Smart people make terrible representatives, but good dictators.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 1:27:57 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:08:58 PM, Double_R wrote:

What exactly is it that you think the president does?
More reading and listening than talking, would be ideal. A president should deeply contemplate decisions that they are required to make after consulting with advisors who have expertise in various subjects that affect constituents.

What do you believe are the skills, knowledge level, principals, character traits, etc necessary to succeed in this position, and more importantly... why do you believe any of the things you mention are necessary?

Skills? Reading and listening.
To be able to comprehend legal jargon in bills that need his signature. A POTUS should possess listening skills to be able to understand what issues are the most pertinent.

Knowledge level? Understand the impact that presidential decisions have on the economy and well being of the people. A POTUS should also possess knowledge of US History from the perspective of the different groups of citizens, not just the group who has the most economic power.
To be able to offer solutions with consideration to how it will affect the morale of different groups.

Principals? True to one's word.
Able to be trusted.

Character traits? Integrity! I'd also like it if the POTUS had triumphed over trials and tribulations in his own life, and was able to recall the period when he was in a disadvantageous situation. Compassion would also be at the top of the list.
The ability to make decisions in an honest and fair manner with regard to the difficult situations that many of us find ourselves in, would result in compassionate solutions to problems we are facing as a nation.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 3:23:02 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:08:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
Clearly, many of our conversations regarding Trump and his qualifications to be president are just exercises in talking past each other. I'd like to attempt a more productive discussion by starting with the very basics. What exactly is it that you think the president does? What do you believe are the skills, knowledge level, principals, character traits, etc necessary to succeed in this position, and more importantly... why do you believe any of the things you mention are necessary?

Please do not respond with "I think a president should be [insert everything you do not like about Clinton]". That's pointless. I think another way to think of this question would be to envision yourself as an employer conducting job interviews for the POTUS... What would be the type of questions you would ask, and what would you look for in the candidates you sit down with?

A keen manipulator and organizer, a person who can put the long-term welfare of the state and its denizens in line. Someone who is loyal to the interests of America, and a nationalist. Intelligence isn't particularly important; but the ability to recognize intelligence in others, then seek out and heed their advice, is. At a certain level I think that it becomes a handicap; you want extremely intelligent advisors, and moderately intelligent leaders who also understand how to manage people.

Trump's biggest plus, but far, is his complete detachment from any sort of political career. One of the biggest handicaps of Western democracies, which international economists have been noting for a while now, is their inability to accept short-term pain for long-term gain due to the election cycle and its influence on policy. Hence why Trump's positions, which come recommended by some of the best minds in that field (viewing protectionist measures as geopolitical necessities in some instances, and seeing the default on the dept as an economic nuclear option, not the end of the words), are lambasted by the political establishment; the idea of long-term thinking divorced from the election cycle and a neurotic obsession with maximizing efficiency is so foreign to them that they see it as instability and insanity.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 2:08:27 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
To offer my own viewpoint...

The primary role and responsibility of the POTUS is to protect our national security via the command of our armed forces and intelligence communities. This requires a deep understanding of how the world works, and an ability to decipher information and make crucial decisions. Beyond just commanding our armed forces, the constitution gives the president tremendous authority over setting our foreign policy, so the candidates priorities cannot be overstated when it comes to choosing the next POTUS.

The president's role in domestic policy is overrated. More than anything else the election is a message regarding what the people want, but the president doesn't get to determine what laws get a vote in congress and can only sign the bills that Congress decides to send him/her. Legislative priority is key to focus on here, but more importantly is the ability to sell their message. Congress will move in the American people want them to move. The president has the loudest mike in the nation.

The President must also be a role model for the nation. This is the person everyone will look to in a time of crisis, and the dignity which this person serves with sets a strong tone for how American's view their government and country.

The reason why I started this thread is because of just how perplexed I am at how anyone could possibly support Donald Trump for President. Most of what we see when looking at Trump vs Hillary is the same, the difference I suspect is in what we think the POTUS actually is and actually does.

With regards to what I have said, I don't even think Trump supporters will argue that Trump is knowledgeable of world affairs. And given his history of spreading wild conspiracy theories I don't think any of them can present a credible argument that this man is capable of making tough well informed decisions involving our national security. I can see where he has appeal regarding domestic policy, but even Trump supporters cannot argue that he has provided any solutions to any of the problems he has identified. And when it comes to being a role model, the man has been a complete embarrassment to the nation. I suppose some Trump supporters will argue that he has not been, but that only demonstrates the remarkable immaturity level of so much of our electorate. While we might actually debate that here in America, there is absolutely no debate about it anywhere else in the world.

So if you are a Trump supporter, please tell me what you think I am getting wrong.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 2:09:55 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 10:17:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
My idea of a POTUS is one that simply takes polls of the people, and works to achieve the goals of 51% of the people.

Did you forget about commander-in-chief?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 2:49:03 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 2:09:55 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 10:17:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
My idea of a POTUS is one that simply takes polls of the people, and works to achieve the goals of 51% of the people.

Did you forget about commander-in-chief?

Commander of what? Congress says when we can go to war. (or they are constitutionally supposed to)

The country can operate just fine without a dictator.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 3:24:33 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 2:08:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
To offer my own viewpoint...

The primary role and responsibility of the POTUS is to protect our national security via the command of our armed forces and intelligence communities. This requires a deep understanding of how the world works, and an ability to decipher information and make crucial decisions. Beyond just commanding our armed forces, the constitution gives the president tremendous authority over setting our foreign policy, so the candidates priorities cannot be overstated when it comes to choosing the next POTUS.

As a military vet, I can assure you that the vast majority of presidents have delegated that job to armchair Generals.


The president's role in domestic policy is overrated. More than anything else the election is a message regarding what the people want, but the president doesn't get to determine what laws get a vote in congress and can only sign the bills that Congress decides to send him/her. Legislative priority is key to focus on here, but more importantly is the ability to sell their message. Congress will move in the American people want them to move. The president has the loudest mike in the nation.

Now you are starting to understand how useless the presidency is and ought to be. Should be similar to the DDO presidency.

The President must also be a role model for the nation. This is the person everyone will look to in a time of crisis, and the dignity which this person serves with sets a strong tone for how Americans view their government and country.

So a form of theocracy? I'll pass.

The reason why I started this thread is because of just how perplexed I am at how anyone could possibly support Donald Trump for President. Most of what we see when looking at Trump vs Hillary is the same, the difference I suspect is in what we think the POTUS actually is and actually does.

With regards to what I have said, I don't even think Trump supporters will argue that Trump is knowledgeable of world affairs. And given his history of spreading wild conspiracy theories I don't think any of them can present a credible argument that this man is capable of making tough well informed decisions involving our national security. I can see where he has appeal regarding domestic policy, but even Trump supporters cannot argue that he has provided any solutions to any of the problems he has identified. And when it comes to being a role model, the man has been a complete embarrassment to the nation. I suppose some Trump supporters will argue that he has not been, but that only demonstrates the remarkable immaturity level of so much of our electorate. While we might actually debate that here in America, there is absolutely no debate about it anywhere else in the world.

So if you are a Trump supporter, please tell me what you think I am getting wrong.

Alot.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 3:40:37 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 2:08:27 AM, Double_R wrote:

So if you are a Trump supporter, please tell me what you think I am getting wrong.

Foreign policy is exactly why I do not, under any circumstance, want Hillary in the Oval Office. A person exercising good foreign policy will consult the relevant experts in any area and then come to a decision. They will rely on practicality over ideology, and think about the long term (how will this country will be positioned ten years from now). If you asked me to list the worst Secretary of State in living memory, Hillary would be up there. Her policies in both Europe and the Middle East have been disastrous; under her watch the Ukraine crisis exploded on to the world scene. To be fair, the groundwork for that was laid by the Bush administration in 2008, but she didn't handle it well at all. The sanctions on Russia are ill-conceived; Russia didn't behave irrationally or aggressively; we can't claim that with a straight face while holding to the Monroe doctrine. They behaved exactly as they said that they would behave if they felt that Ukraine was being pulled into the Western sphere of influence: they secured their crucial geopolitical holding (the Crimea, especially Sevastopol), and caused as much pain to both Ukraine and Moldova as possible by funneling support to and further inflaming separatists. These are all rational responses, which could have been prevented by putting the eastward expansion of any Western influence on ice, but instead we've doubled down and attempted to economically cripple a country which we should be forging closer relationships with in our effort to contain China. It's insanity. Russia is an extraction economy experiencing anemic population growth, they aren't the fvcking Soviet Union. Hell, the conflicts over central Asian natural gas fields and pipelines which will erupt once the prices go back up will make Russia and China natural enemies.

The attempt to use Syria as a proxy war, and the sloppy handling of North Africa, caused innumerable problems. And we are still doubling down on Syria. We still refuse to sit down with Russia and find common ground. And we, as a country, are acting as if Trump is crazy or a traitor for wanting to do the rational thing. The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 12:05:47 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 2:49:03 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:09:55 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2016 10:17:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
My idea of a POTUS is one that simply takes polls of the people, and works to achieve the goals of 51% of the people.

Did you forget about commander-in-chief?

Commander of what? Congress says when we can go to war. (or they are constitutionally supposed to)

And what has Congress said about our "war" with ISIS? I thought Obama had been commanding the armed forces up until this point.

The country can operate just fine without a dictator.

Exactly the kind of juvenile rhetoric that prevents productive discussion.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 12:08:46 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 3:24:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:08:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
To offer my own viewpoint...

The primary role and responsibility of the POTUS is to protect our national security via the command of our armed forces and intelligence communities. This requires a deep understanding of how the world works, and an ability to decipher information and make crucial decisions. Beyond just commanding our armed forces, the constitution gives the president tremendous authority over setting our foreign policy, so the candidates priorities cannot be overstated when it comes to choosing the next POTUS.

As a military vet, I can assure you that the vast majority of presidents have delegated that job to armchair Generals.

Ah, so you're going to go with the "POTUS doesn't really command anything" response. K thx.

The president's role in domestic policy is overrated. More than anything else the election is a message regarding what the people want, but the president doesn't get to determine what laws get a vote in congress and can only sign the bills that Congress decides to send him/her. Legislative priority is key to focus on here, but more importantly is the ability to sell their message. Congress will move in the American people want them to move. The president has the loudest mike in the nation.

Now you are starting to understand how useless the presidency is and ought to be. Should be similar to the DDO presidency.

Ought is irrelevant. We're talking about is.

The President must also be a role model for the nation. This is the person everyone will look to in a time of crisis, and the dignity which this person serves with sets a strong tone for how Americans view their government and country.

So a form of theocracy? I'll pass.

If you aren't going to bother responding to the point I actually made then please do not bother.

The reason why I started this thread is because of just how perplexed I am at how anyone could possibly support Donald Trump for President. Most of what we see when looking at Trump vs Hillary is the same, the difference I suspect is in what we think the POTUS actually is and actually does.

With regards to what I have said, I don't even think Trump supporters will argue that Trump is knowledgeable of world affairs. And given his history of spreading wild conspiracy theories I don't think any of them can present a credible argument that this man is capable of making tough well informed decisions involving our national security. I can see where he has appeal regarding domestic policy, but even Trump supporters cannot argue that he has provided any solutions to any of the problems he has identified. And when it comes to being a role model, the man has been a complete embarrassment to the nation. I suppose some Trump supporters will argue that he has not been, but that only demonstrates the remarkable immaturity level of so much of our electorate. While we might actually debate that here in America, there is absolutely no debate about it anywhere else in the world.

So if you are a Trump supporter, please tell me what you think I am getting wrong.

Alot.

That's useless.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 12:15:24 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 3:40:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:08:27 AM, Double_R wrote:

So if you are a Trump supporter, please tell me what you think I am getting wrong.

Foreign policy is exactly why I do not, under any circumstance, want Hillary in the Oval Office. A person exercising good foreign policy will consult the relevant experts in any area and then come to a decision. They will rely on practicality over ideology, and think about the long term (how will this country will be positioned ten years from now). If you asked me to list the worst Secretary of State in living memory, Hillary would be up there. Her policies in both Europe and the Middle East have been disastrous; under her watch the Ukraine crisis exploded on to the world scene. To be fair, the groundwork for that was laid by the Bush administration in 2008, but she didn't handle it well at all. The sanctions on Russia are ill-conceived; Russia didn't behave irrationally or aggressively; we can't claim that with a straight face while holding to the Monroe doctrine. They behaved exactly as they said that they would behave if they felt that Ukraine was being pulled into the Western sphere of influence: they secured their crucial geopolitical holding (the Crimea, especially Sevastopol), and caused as much pain to both Ukraine and Moldova as possible by funneling support to and further inflaming separatists. These are all rational responses, which could have been prevented by putting the eastward expansion of any Western influence on ice, but instead we've doubled down and attempted to economically cripple a country which we should be forging closer relationships with in our effort to contain China. It's insanity. Russia is an extraction economy experiencing anemic population growth, they aren't the fvcking Soviet Union. Hell, the conflicts over central Asian natural gas fields and pipelines which will erupt once the prices go back up will make Russia and China natural enemies.

The attempt to use Syria as a proxy war, and the sloppy handling of North Africa, caused innumerable problems. And we are still doubling down on Syria. We still refuse to sit down with Russia and find common ground. And we, as a country, are acting as if Trump is crazy or a traitor for wanting to do the rational thing. The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.

Ok. Hillary was a terrible secretary of state. Got it. So what skills and qualifications has Trump displayed regarding the actual job of the POTUS?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 5:13:28 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/9/2016 12:15:24 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/8/2016 3:40:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:08:27 AM, Double_R wrote:

So if you are a Trump supporter, please tell me what you think I am getting wrong.

Foreign policy is exactly why I do not, under any circumstance, want Hillary in the Oval Office. A person exercising good foreign policy will consult the relevant experts in any area and then come to a decision. They will rely on practicality over ideology, and think about the long term (how will this country will be positioned ten years from now). If you asked me to list the worst Secretary of State in living memory, Hillary would be up there. Her policies in both Europe and the Middle East have been disastrous; under her watch the Ukraine crisis exploded on to the world scene. To be fair, the groundwork for that was laid by the Bush administration in 2008, but she didn't handle it well at all. The sanctions on Russia are ill-conceived; Russia didn't behave irrationally or aggressively; we can't claim that with a straight face while holding to the Monroe doctrine. They behaved exactly as they said that they would behave if they felt that Ukraine was being pulled into the Western sphere of influence: they secured their crucial geopolitical holding (the Crimea, especially Sevastopol), and caused as much pain to both Ukraine and Moldova as possible by funneling support to and further inflaming separatists. These are all rational responses, which could have been prevented by putting the eastward expansion of any Western influence on ice, but instead we've doubled down and attempted to economically cripple a country which we should be forging closer relationships with in our effort to contain China. It's insanity. Russia is an extraction economy experiencing anemic population growth, they aren't the fvcking Soviet Union. Hell, the conflicts over central Asian natural gas fields and pipelines which will erupt once the prices go back up will make Russia and China natural enemies.

The attempt to use Syria as a proxy war, and the sloppy handling of North Africa, caused innumerable problems. And we are still doubling down on Syria. We still refuse to sit down with Russia and find common ground. And we, as a country, are acting as if Trump is crazy or a traitor for wanting to do the rational thing. The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.

Ok. Hillary was a terrible secretary of state. Got it. So what skills and qualifications has Trump displayed regarding the actual job of the POTUS?

Executive experience. My ideal president is someone who delegates, which is what Trump has spent his entire life doing. It's a business model. The reason that we got stuck with an incompetent political wife as Secretary of State is related to how politics are usually run in this country: important positions are handed out as favors to political supporters. I think that Trump would be much more inclined to appoint technocrats and more or less leave them alone unless it's a big enough situation that he needs to make direct input.

As far as his 'temperament', I find the idea that a President should be some austere philosopher king to be laughable. The President is a symbol, and as long as Trump makes good cabinet appointments I think that it's good that he's a bit bombastic and off the cuff. The people who are 'horrified' by this are little more than the atrophied, bloodless remains of whatever aristocracy this country once possessed, and the sooner that these people, with their venomous disdain for 'the plebs', are unseated, the better. It's against this sort of condescension and unwarranted arrogance that the entire anti-establishment political movement is aimed, and that populist backlash isn't going to go away until it inflicts some real damage.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 7:23:50 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 5:13:28 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

As far as his 'temperament', I find the idea that a President should be some austere philosopher king to be laughable.
This is what I meant by, "we don't benefit from forms of a Theocracy," where a person dictates from the bully pulpit. We already had that for 8 years, and platitudes don't actually solve problems.
The President is a symbol, and as long as Trump makes good cabinet appointments I think that it's good that he's a bit bombastic and off the cuff. The people who are 'horrified' by this are little more than the atrophied, bloodless remains of whatever aristocracy this country once possessed, and the sooner that these people, with their venomous disdain for 'the plebs', are unseated, the better. It's against this sort of condescension and unwarranted arrogance that the entire anti-establishment political movement is aimed, and that populist backlash isn't going to go away until it inflicts some real damage.

What is actually funny, and this has been said before: if the current system were slightly less than dysfunctional, they would have rode the populist wave out, and then gone back to business as usual. Instead, the inciting of a frenzied public only builds that wave to a predictable maelstrom; and the establishment is comically chasing their tails trying to explain why they still can't escape the undertow of populism.
Davery79
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 1:59:06 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 7:23:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/11/2016 5:13:28 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

As far as his 'temperament', I find the idea that a President should be some austere philosopher king to be laughable.
This is what I meant by, "we don't benefit from forms of a Theocracy," where a person dictates from the bully pulpit. We already had that for 8 years, and platitudes don't actually solve problems.
The President is a symbol, and as long as Trump makes good cabinet appointments I think that it's good that he's a bit bombastic and off the cuff. The people who are 'horrified' by this are little more than the atrophied, bloodless remains of whatever aristocracy this country once possessed, and the sooner that these people, with their venomous disdain for 'the plebs', are unseated, the better. It's against this sort of condescension and unwarranted arrogance that the entire anti-establishment political movement is aimed, and that populist backlash isn't going to go away until it inflicts some real damage.

What is actually funny, and this has been said before: if the current system were slightly less than dysfunctional, they would have rode the populist wave out, and then gone back to business as usual. Instead, the inciting of a frenzied public only builds that wave to a predictable maelstrom; and the establishment is comically chasing their tails trying to explain why they still can't escape the undertow of populism.

This is a good forum and I understand both point of views. I agree with the US being treated as a business, and using a business model to further our economy and build foreign relations, in the end that is really what it is. Trump's biggest flaw is his narcissism, but that is also a big asset. His goal is to be remembered as the best president ever. If he achieves this, because of his narcissism, who cares, we all benefit. The issue I have, which no one has brought up yet, is he is a complete hands on guy, I don't think any decision is made without him making it, or at least researching suggestions given to him, then taking credit for it. That is a President/CEO kind of mindset, which is a quality I don't mind for a presidential candidate, but, if he does gain the presidency, who is going to be making decisions for his current businesses when he has other, more important obligations? He may consider the presidency as a part time job, and spend a lot of time still running and opening new businesses, hotels, properties, etc. I hope he understands that he will not be able to do both. I think he is going to want to try, which worries me.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 12:47:57 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 5:13:28 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:15:24 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/8/2016 3:40:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:08:27 AM, Double_R wrote:

So if you are a Trump supporter, please tell me what you think I am getting wrong.

Foreign policy is exactly why I do not, under any circumstance, want Hillary in the Oval Office. A person exercising good foreign policy will consult the relevant experts in any area and then come to a decision. They will rely on practicality over ideology, and think about the long term (how will this country will be positioned ten years from now). If you asked me to list the worst Secretary of State in living memory, Hillary would be up there. Her policies in both Europe and the Middle East have been disastrous; under her watch the Ukraine crisis exploded on to the world scene. To be fair, the groundwork for that was laid by the Bush administration in 2008, but she didn't handle it well at all. The sanctions on Russia are ill-conceived; Russia didn't behave irrationally or aggressively; we can't claim that with a straight face while holding to the Monroe doctrine. They behaved exactly as they said that they would behave if they felt that Ukraine was being pulled into the Western sphere of influence: they secured their crucial geopolitical holding (the Crimea, especially Sevastopol), and caused as much pain to both Ukraine and Moldova as possible by funneling support to and further inflaming separatists. These are all rational responses, which could have been prevented by putting the eastward expansion of any Western influence on ice, but instead we've doubled down and attempted to economically cripple a country which we should be forging closer relationships with in our effort to contain China. It's insanity. Russia is an extraction economy experiencing anemic population growth, they aren't the fvcking Soviet Union. Hell, the conflicts over central Asian natural gas fields and pipelines which will erupt once the prices go back up will make Russia and China natural enemies.

The attempt to use Syria as a proxy war, and the sloppy handling of North Africa, caused innumerable problems. And we are still doubling down on Syria. We still refuse to sit down with Russia and find common ground. And we, as a country, are acting as if Trump is crazy or a traitor for wanting to do the rational thing. The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.

Ok. Hillary was a terrible secretary of state. Got it. So what skills and qualifications has Trump displayed regarding the actual job of the POTUS?

Executive experience. My ideal president is someone who delegates, which is what Trump has spent his entire life doing.

Trump is a salesman who has spent his whole life convincing people he is so rich that he must have all the secrets to financial success, and wealth will be theirs if they just do business with him. That's not relevant experience.

As far as his 'temperament', I find the idea that a President should be some austere philosopher king to be laughable.

That is a gross and willfully blind mischaraterization of the problem. The authority of our government comes from the trust & respect the people have in our constitution. That did not just randomly happen, that was earned by the quality and dignity of our political leaders over the years. Trumps complete level of idiocy and indifference to human decency are a serious threat to fabric that holds our political system together. People do not follow leaders who are remarkably ignorant, narcissistic, delusional, and completely unconcerned about them, as Trump has conveyed many many times.

It's against this sort of condescension and unwarranted arrogance that the entire anti-establishment political movement is aimed, and that populist backlash isn't going to go away until it inflicts some real damage.

It already has. The rest of the world is losing respect for us very quickly.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 1:43:37 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 12:47:57 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/11/2016 5:13:28 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:15:24 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/8/2016 3:40:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:08:27 AM, Double_R wrote:

So if you are a Trump supporter, please tell me what you think I am getting wrong.

Foreign policy is exactly why I do not, under any circumstance, want Hillary in the Oval Office. A person exercising good foreign policy will consult the relevant experts in any area and then come to a decision. They will rely on practicality over ideology, and think about the long term (how will this country will be positioned ten years from now). If you asked me to list the worst Secretary of State in living memory, Hillary would be up there. Her policies in both Europe and the Middle East have been disastrous; under her watch the Ukraine crisis exploded on to the world scene. To be fair, the groundwork for that was laid by the Bush administration in 2008, but she didn't handle it well at all. The sanctions on Russia are ill-conceived; Russia didn't behave irrationally or aggressively; we can't claim that with a straight face while holding to the Monroe doctrine. They behaved exactly as they said that they would behave if they felt that Ukraine was being pulled into the Western sphere of influence: they secured their crucial geopolitical holding (the Crimea, especially Sevastopol), and caused as much pain to both Ukraine and Moldova as possible by funneling support to and further inflaming separatists. These are all rational responses, which could have been prevented by putting the eastward expansion of any Western influence on ice, but instead we've doubled down and attempted to economically cripple a country which we should be forging closer relationships with in our effort to contain China. It's insanity. Russia is an extraction economy experiencing anemic population growth, they aren't the fvcking Soviet Union. Hell, the conflicts over central Asian natural gas fields and pipelines which will erupt once the prices go back up will make Russia and China natural enemies.

The attempt to use Syria as a proxy war, and the sloppy handling of North Africa, caused innumerable problems. And we are still doubling down on Syria. We still refuse to sit down with Russia and find common ground. And we, as a country, are acting as if Trump is crazy or a traitor for wanting to do the rational thing. The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.

Ok. Hillary was a terrible secretary of state. Got it. So what skills and qualifications has Trump displayed regarding the actual job of the POTUS?

Executive experience. My ideal president is someone who delegates, which is what Trump has spent his entire life doing.

Trump is a salesman who has spent his whole life convincing people he is so rich that he must have all the secrets to financial success, and wealth will be theirs if they just do business with him. That's not relevant experience.

He managed a huge holding company; that's certainly relevant experience.

As far as his 'temperament', I find the idea that a President should be some austere philosopher king to be laughable.

That is a gross and willfully blind mischaraterization of the problem. The authority of our government comes from the trust & respect the people have in our constitution. That did not just randomly happen, that was earned by the quality and dignity of our political leaders over the years. Trumps complete level of idiocy and indifference to human decency are a serious threat to fabric that holds our political system together. People do not follow leaders who are remarkably ignorant, narcissistic, delusional, and completely unconcerned about them, as Trump has conveyed many many times.

Do you honestly think that most people in this country respect the president? Honestly? Maybe before Clinton buried the dignity of the office in Monica Lewinsky's throat. Maybe before Nixon. You think that Bush was respected and trusted? Not by about half the country.

It's against this sort of condescension and unwarranted arrogance that the entire anti-establishment political movement is aimed, and that populist backlash isn't going to go away until it inflicts some real damage.

It already has. The rest of the world is losing respect for us very quickly.

The rest of the world needs to pay more attention to their own back yards. And that's hyperbolic anyway; a few years of competent foreign policy ought to warm up any cold feet.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -