Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cant imagine Trump as our president. All he does is attack people, sometimes if they dont agree with him, or just for no reason. If hes gets elected. I just hope he can keep his mouth shut, but I dont think so.
Meh. He has no trouble keeping his mouth shut if he wants to, but when and how much he chooses to do that doesn't conform to the whims of the political class. A "loose cannon" like that might create chaos in the regime and spend four years spreading the truth to the people about what's really going on in their government, truths that no one is supposed to tell because they shatter the illusions and mantras that government relies upon to maintain power . At that point the establishment will have only one option open to them - surrender to the people instead of surrender to Trump, i.e. appealing to, listening to, and fighting for the people while responding in a way that's an alternative to Trump. Trump's election, and the election of any of the outsiders to a lesser extent, would signal that the people have sent an agent of their wrath to destroy Washington. Tactically, it will then force the establishment and political class to choose the lesser of two evils that the people present to them instead of vice versa.
This is also another example of not electing people for stupid reasons - there are probably dozens of smart, good arguments against Trump becoming President but instead everyone uses the stupid, bad ones. This has led me to the conclusion that Trump is exactly right when he says (paraphrasing) "this country's being run by stupid people".
Meh. He has no trouble keeping his mouth shut if he wants to, but when and how much he chooses to do that doesn't conform to the whims of the political class. A "loose cannon" like that might create chaos in the regime and spend four years spreading the truth to the people about what's really going on in their government, truths that no one is supposed to tell because they shatter the illusions and mantras that government relies upon to maintain power . At that point the establishment will have only one option open to them - surrender to the people instead of surrender to Trump, i.e. appealing to, listening to, and fighting for the people while responding in a way that's an alternative to Trump. Trump's election, and the election of any of the outsiders to a lesser extent, would signal that the people have sent an agent of their wrath to destroy Washington. Tactically, it will then force the establishment and political class to choose the lesser of two evils that the people present to them instead of vice versa.
This is also another example of not electing people for stupid reasons - there are probably dozens of smart, good arguments against Trump becoming President but instead everyone uses the stupid, bad ones. This has led me to the conclusion that Trump is exactly right when he says (paraphrasing) "this country's being run by stupid people".
I think you have Trump confused with Ron Paul. Ron Paul has spent more than four years spreading the truth to the American people about what is really going on in their government and he has been labeled, crazy uncle larry.
When the question of immigration came up and the building of a wall. Ron Paul poised a question, is the wall to keep people out, or to keep people in, which he pointed out would be the logical question if a wall ever came about.
The American people had a chance to send an agent of their wrath to the Washington and they passed on that opportunity. The people do not really want to hold their government accountable for their actions, because one, it means they might have to do something. Two, they like their government just the way that it is.
We do have an alternative candidate running for POTUS as an Independent. For those who have looked at the candidates up for nomination and thought them to be a joke, your not alone. Ron White 2016 "Comedy makes me uniquely qualified for president".
Lots of these comments seem to suggest that Trump and others are somehow disclosing truth that is some kind of news to anyone. If anyone who has followed politics to any extent at all doesn't already know these truths for a long time now, then we really are talking about stupid. The problem is not that we need be told the truth or don't know it already. The problem is that no one really seems to think the problem is serious. Or maybe we all just don't know what to do about it, because those wanting to maintain the status quo certainly don't want to change it. Trump rattles that cage as well as anyone, but what's stupid is the things Trump says to do so. Much like the difference between World Wrestling Entertainment and Olympic wrestling, Trump knows how to get attention, not how to really do the job of POTUS. Voters, please have mercy...
Because those thst are good make too much money in the private sector, and then when we find one, the media run them off because they are not a politician
Because those thst are good make too much money in the private sector, and then when we find one, the media run them off because they are not a politician
I always cringe a bit when people suggest good money-makers are somehow worthy of our consideration over those who aren't when it comes to our elected representatives. Some of our greatest national leaders were not known for being good business people, and that makes sense, doesn't it? The mission of government and how it works is a good deal different than an individual or organization with the primary if not exclusive goal of making money.
Also, Bloomberg, Giuliani, Perot, Trump and a good many others have not exactly been run off by the media...
Why do we elect business men and lawyers to be Commander and Chief of our Military? For as long as I have lived (and I've lived awhile now) that is another one of many things I do not understand.
Could be the reason we can't elect anyone good is because the field of prospects has been narrowed. imo, a military general is the obvious choice as to achieve Commander and Chief would be the last step of the ladder to his success.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 01-20-2016 at 12:18 PM..
Reason: added a title
Why do we elect business men and lawyers to be Commander and Chief of our Military? For as long as I have lived (and I've lived awhile now) that is another one of many things I do not understand.
Could be the reason we can't elect anyone good is because the field of prospects has been narrowed. imo, a military general is the obvious choice as to achieve Commander and Chief would be the last step of the ladder to his success.
Maybe it's that we can't agree on what makes for a good POTUS! I would not exclude a military leader just because they were a military leader, but that experience is not what I consider high up on the list of requirements. In fact, our founding fathers went to some length to insure civilian rule and all too many countries that have relied a little too much on their military and/or military leaders have not benefited from the results.
Ultimately, it is vision, passion, smarts, a level-head, the ability to bring people together and a true desire to do right by "we the people" that just BEGINS to define a good leader/POTUS, and what career experience allows them to emerge with those traits is not as important as whether they have come to actually possess those traits...
Maybe it's that we can't agree on what makes for a good POTUS! I would not exclude a military leader just because they were a military leader, but that experience is not what I consider high up on the list of requirements. In fact, our founding fathers went to some length to insure civilian rule and all too many countries that have relied a little too much on their military and/or military leaders have not benefited from the results.
Ultimately, it is vision, passion, smarts, a level-head, the ability to bring people together and a true desire to do right by "we the people" that just BEGINS to define a good leader/POTUS, and what career experience allows them to emerge with those traits is not as important as whether they have come to actually possess those traits...
Then we need to be looking at Congress for 'we the people' as POTUS is suppose to be a 'figure head', not a king with vision.
The Commander and Chief performs strategic military maneuvers and guides our armed forces into battle. A POTUS with military experience has made and will always make more sense to me for office, than a business man or lawyer. The POTUS with the exception of the military, can not breathe without Congressional approval. If that is no longer so, then "we the people" need to address Congress; start with a dock in pay for not doing their job. They are to represent us, not the POTUS.
Then we need to be looking at Congress for 'we the people' as POTUS is suppose to be a 'figure head', not a king with vision.
The Commander and Chief performs strategic military maneuvers and guides our armed forces into battle. A POTUS with military experience has made and will always make more sense to me for office, than a business man or lawyer. The POTUS with the exception of the military, can not breathe without Congressional approval. If that is no longer so, then "we the people" need to address Congress; start with a dock in pay for not doing their job. They are to represent us, not the POTUS.
POTUS is by no means supposed to be a figure head, and military leaders are supposed to do what the Commander-in-Chief dictates - that's the President. Remember how Patton had to be lessoned about all that? Let's surely hope that our POTUS is a good deal more than a "figure head" given the responsibility as Commander-in-Chief, let alone all the others. I thought we were exchanging opinion about the qualities of a good leader and what makes for a good resume. Seems we're onto another subject as we consider the branches of government and the checks-and-balances they represent when it comes to our government's overall responsibility to "we the people."
"why cant we elect anyone good?" <<<America votes for Personalites. Other countries votes for Political Parties and the accompanying Policies.
Policy is more important to socialist countries by and large, than Personality is.
We barely know our candidates names, you guys treat them like Movie Stars.
For the most part correct and/or I agree. No doubt Americans vote for candidates that are far too much about who we "like" over who is best qualified for the job, but if you look close, we do pretty much vote according to party line, and we only really have two to choose from. Most Americans know before the candidates even open their mouths which party they are most in line with from a policy standpoint, then it just becomes a question of which candidate from that party is the one to chose to do battle against the other party.
What country are you from? No doubt there are pros and cons to all various systems of government and I don't know if what you are explaining is exclusive to socialist countries, but like Churchill is famous for saying, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
Not sure our attempt at democracy is working as it should, but that's another matter...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. At that point the establishment will have only one option open to them - surrender to the people instead of surrender to Trump, i.e. appealing to, listening to, and fighting for the people while responding in a way that's an alternative to Trump. Trump's election, and the election of any of the outsiders to a lesser extent, would signal that the people have sent an agent of their wrath to destroy Washington. Tactically, it will then force the establishment and political class to choose the lesser of two evils that the people present to them instead of vice versa.
Not so sure about that...
