The Next American President Thread (2016)

13940424445198

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    At the end of the day, the people collectively decide, and I trust their judgement, in each and every fair election everywhere, not just in the US.
    Wait. We have a test to see if you're a competent driver, but no test to see if you're a competent voter?
    That sound right to you? ;)
    It's the collective wisdom of the crowds theory.

    One can make a mistake individually, but collectively, after watching & taking in this grueling contest which lasts for 1.5 yrs with all its press machinations and what not, as well as how candidates react to the pressure cooker (who the hell would want this job and put up with all of this I don't know), the public tends to get it right.

    Ultimately, it's always a vote on character.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's the collective wisdom of the crowds theory.
    Yes, I do partially subscribe to that theory, actually...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited June 2016 Posts: 17,801
    Good article, but it smacks of fear of change.
    "We fear change." - Garth in "Wayne's World"
    Still, good calls on Trump's nonsense....

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Change is life, @chrisisall. Just a matter of how, degrees, urgency, etc. It's important to keep changing ... in good ways. As a person, group, business, country, everything. I don't have a fear of change per se.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    I won't, though, underestimate Trump by calling him a clown or whatever else the media likes to call him. Everything he's doing is very calculated, there's a specific purpose behind everything he's doing, and, at least in terms of getting himself to the top of the polls, it's working brilliantly. He's an opportunist who has bided his time, declining to run for the office before, waiting for the right moment when he knew he stood a good chance of winning. He found it in 2016 where he faced a group of Republican lawmakers he knew he could bully into defeat, and then on the other side he knew all he had was a historically unpopular candidate in Clinton and someone he could simply shout "Socialist" at until he was way out in front.
    I agree. I said at the start of this thread that he is a master tactician, strategist and a superior marketer. That has been his career. That's how he's got to where he is today. He has it down pat. Those who underestimate him are the real fools, as has been aptly demonstrated to date.

    Yes, and those qualities are indeed great assets for a self-made billionaire and real estate mogul. The point is: Presidential elections are not about electing a 'real estate marketer'........they are about electing an experienced person who understand the complexities of a country in the highest and must dignified office in the USA.

    You know, the biggest problem I have with Trump is that we are heading again into the Bush Jr. years. Bush was also elected because people liked his cowboyish wit and charm.

    Also, Trump still hasn't explained detailed policies. And people don't seem to be interested in that anymore. I find that rather dangerous. So should we hail Trump for being an experienced marketer?
    Yes, you should hail him for that skill. It is a skill and should be respected, not insulted.

    We know full well that this is not the only skill required for the presidency. Not by a long shot. The American people know that too. They aren't stupid collectively imho.

    As I've said before, the American electoral process is messy, and it's tough, but ultimately it has a convoluted way of picking candidates who can handle the pressure of the top job. I'm confident it will do so again this time, and I will live with the result, whatever it is. There are enough checks and balances in the American constitution to prevent a catastrophe. Damn shame the Democrats fell in line for the Iraq war, when they had a chance to stop it.

    What I will not do is succumb to name calling and fear mongering, dressed up as rational thought.

    I don't respect that particular skill in a presidential election. I'm not insulting that skill, I simply don't respect it for running a country. The USA is not one of Trump's big skyscrapers. It's a territory populated with millions of people. Hence why I don't respect that skill. Trump needs to do what he does best: practicing capitalism to the extreme. He can do that much better than Clinton.
    That skill is a political skill. It's what candidates like Clinton spend $mm buying out there (with all their strategists, superpacs and the like) in order to get elected.

    At the end of the day, the people collectively decide, and I trust their judgement, in each and every fair election everywhere, not just in the US.

    You and I probably differ on that point, from what I'm reading, which again is your prerogative, and perfectly fine.

    Democracy is not just something to be commended and applauded when it gives you the result that you want.

    Your last sentence implies that I envision Clinton doing a Watergate. I'm sorry, but then you didn't understand my arguments. All I ask is for some sanity and self-education before you cast your vote.

    The political skills you are referring to are exactly those skills that damage democracy. Implying that I support a candidate that buys an election is nonsense.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    I won't, though, underestimate Trump by calling him a clown or whatever else the media likes to call him. Everything he's doing is very calculated, there's a specific purpose behind everything he's doing, and, at least in terms of getting himself to the top of the polls, it's working brilliantly. He's an opportunist who has bided his time, declining to run for the office before, waiting for the right moment when he knew he stood a good chance of winning. He found it in 2016 where he faced a group of Republican lawmakers he knew he could bully into defeat, and then on the other side he knew all he had was a historically unpopular candidate in Clinton and someone he could simply shout "Socialist" at until he was way out in front.
    I agree. I said at the start of this thread that he is a master tactician, strategist and a superior marketer. That has been his career. That's how he's got to where he is today. He has it down pat. Those who underestimate him are the real fools, as has been aptly demonstrated to date.

    Yes, and those qualities are indeed great assets for a self-made billionaire and real estate mogul. The point is: Presidential elections are not about electing a 'real estate marketer'........they are about electing an experienced person who understand the complexities of a country in the highest and must dignified office in the USA.

    You know, the biggest problem I have with Trump is that we are heading again into the Bush Jr. years. Bush was also elected because people liked his cowboyish wit and charm.

    Also, Trump still hasn't explained detailed policies. And people don't seem to be interested in that anymore. I find that rather dangerous. So should we hail Trump for being an experienced marketer?
    Yes, you should hail him for that skill. It is a skill and should be respected, not insulted.

    We know full well that this is not the only skill required for the presidency. Not by a long shot. The American people know that too. They aren't stupid collectively imho.

    As I've said before, the American electoral process is messy, and it's tough, but ultimately it has a convoluted way of picking candidates who can handle the pressure of the top job. I'm confident it will do so again this time, and I will live with the result, whatever it is. There are enough checks and balances in the American constitution to prevent a catastrophe. Damn shame the Democrats fell in line for the Iraq war, when they had a chance to stop it.

    What I will not do is succumb to name calling and fear mongering, dressed up as rational thought.

    I don't respect that particular skill in a presidential election. I'm not insulting that skill, I simply don't respect it for running a country. The USA is not one of Trump's big skyscrapers. It's a territory populated with millions of people. Hence why I don't respect that skill. Trump needs to do what he does best: practicing capitalism to the extreme. He can do that much better than Clinton.
    That skill is a political skill. It's what candidates like Clinton spend $mm buying out there (with all their strategists, superpacs and the like) in order to get elected.

    At the end of the day, the people collectively decide, and I trust their judgement, in each and every fair election everywhere, not just in the US.

    You and I probably differ on that point, from what I'm reading, which again is your prerogative, and perfectly fine.

    Democracy is not just something to be commended and applauded when it gives you the result that you want.

    Your last sentence implies that I envision Clinton doing a Watergate. I'm sorry, but then you didn't understand my arguments. All I ask is for some sanity and self-education before you cast your vote.

    The political skills you are referring to are exactly those skills that damage democracy. Implying that I support a candidate that buys an election is nonsense.
    It's ironic that you are getting all worked up and apocalyptic about an election in which the people are speaking, in contradiction to the money trail, on both sides. One in which the little guy and gal is exercising his/her voice, and where the traditional rules of the game are being circumvented.

    Let democracy work. Have some faith in the electoral process. It's not perfect, but in the end it's the best we have.

    The public is not as stupid as you seem to feel they are all all over the world. If voters are going in one direction, there is a reason for that. As I said several months ago on this thread, it's important to understand 'why', and not denigrate, insult or dismiss their collective perspective. Those who do, no matter on which side of the argument they are on, will inevitably be on the losing side.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    edited June 2016 Posts: 8,266
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's the collective wisdom of the crowds theory.
    Yes, I do partially subscribe to that theory, actually...

    I did fully, until a few weeks ago, when the Phillipines chose their new president. They chose foolishly. And I'm quite scared of what's going to happen there next.

    just to get an impression:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/31/the-new-president-of-the-philippines-says-many-slain-journalists-deserved-it/

    But perhaps you guys could choose this guy : ;-)


  • Posts: 7,507
    bondjames wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    At the end of the day, the people collectively decide, and I trust their judgement, in each and every fair election everywhere, not just in the US.
    Wait. We have a test to see if you're a competent driver, but no test to see if you're a competent voter?
    That sound right to you? ;)
    It's the collective wisdom of the crowds theory.

    One can make a mistake individually, but collectively, after watching & taking in this grueling contest which lasts for 1.5 yrs with all its press machinations and what not, as well as how candidates react to the pressure cooker (who the hell would want this job and put up with all of this I don't know), the public tends to get it right.

    Ultimately, it's always a vote on character.


    And that in itself is quite problematic, as it should be a vote on politics.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    An article in The Wall Street Journal:
    http://www.wsj.com/article_email/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898-lMyQjAxMTI2NDA1MTAwMzE1Wj
    I'll save my I-told-you-so until after Sander's Presidency has hatched... :D
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    jobo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    At the end of the day, the people collectively decide, and I trust their judgement, in each and every fair election everywhere, not just in the US.
    Wait. We have a test to see if you're a competent driver, but no test to see if you're a competent voter?
    That sound right to you? ;)
    It's the collective wisdom of the crowds theory.

    One can make a mistake individually, but collectively, after watching & taking in this grueling contest which lasts for 1.5 yrs with all its press machinations and what not, as well as how candidates react to the pressure cooker (who the hell would want this job and put up with all of this I don't know), the public tends to get it right.

    Ultimately, it's always a vote on character.


    And that in itself is quite problematic, as it should be a vote on politics.
    I have no problem with it being a vote on character for the US presidency. As I've said, there are more than enough checks and balances in the US system to prevent overreach, as long as the other side doesn't cave in (which the Dem's have done in the past, so they only have themselves to blame).

    For me, the most important things are judgement, character and vision, as well as personal strength and conviction. There are departments & Congress/Senate to fill in the blanks and the details.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited June 2016 Posts: 17,801
    I know fans of Hillary won't give this this time of day (probably, it's 18 minutes long), but it spells out precisely why I want Bernie, and precisely why I really REALLY don't like Ms. Clinton.
    http://www.downvids.net/demopocalypse-jon-stewart-comes-out-of-retirement-813527.html

    And anyone here who says Bernie doesn't have a good understanding of foreign affairs may just be shocked into shutting up about that... ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That's a good link. Hillary reminds me of Gore. There is a veneer of inauthenticity about her which the public senses. As if she's been airbrushed to death. An automaton candidate.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    bondjames wrote: »
    There is a veneer of inauthenticity about her which the public senses. As if she's been airbrushed to death. An automaton candidate.
    Nice way of putting it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Let Hillary be Hillary I say!

    Although I don't know if that will really do much.
  • Posts: 11,119
    jobo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    At the end of the day, the people collectively decide, and I trust their judgement, in each and every fair election everywhere, not just in the US.
    Wait. We have a test to see if you're a competent driver, but no test to see if you're a competent voter?
    That sound right to you? ;)
    It's the collective wisdom of the crowds theory.

    One can make a mistake individually, but collectively, after watching & taking in this grueling contest which lasts for 1.5 yrs with all its press machinations and what not, as well as how candidates react to the pressure cooker (who the hell would want this job and put up with all of this I don't know), the public tends to get it right.

    Ultimately, it's always a vote on character.


    And that in itself is quite problematic, as it should be a vote on politics.

    You're hitting the nail on the head here. In a healthy democracy, we should vote for detailed issues, ideas and solutions. Not for just a person, his/her charisma, or other trivialities that aren't related at all to intellect.

    By the way, saying that there are enough 'checks and balances' in the USA is like ignoring the US political system. As it is now, the US seems to be 'governed' (kidnapped) by a rigged two-party system. And no outsider candidates, not even Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, dare to admit that. Not at all, they 'lift' on a political party that's not even part of their core ideologies.

    Actually, the weirdest thing about this entire topic is this: There is barely a discussion about the issues. It's all populist banter from both ends of the political spectrum. It tires me. So I suggest we change this topic into something more.....healthy. A discussion about the issues. Let's use this link for that: https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

    Once you finished the test, be a nice empathic boy or girl and post a printscreen of your results. We can perhaps then compare and start a real discussion about the issues. Shall we ;-)?
  • Posts: 5,994
    Even if I'm a pinko French, here's mine :

    http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/2347266320

    Surprise, surprise !
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    The US presidency is not a dictatorship. It is not a parliamentary system either.

    In a constitutional republic like it is, the legislation is drafted by the two chambers of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Executive Branch, headed by the president, is independent of both the legislative and the judicial branch. Although the president appoints the Supreme Court nominee, it has to be approved by the legislative branch.

    So ultimately, the president has limited power to make dramatic changes to policy. That is in the hands of Congress. Obama tried at the outset, and he ran into Congressional roadblocks & limitations throughout his 8 years in office.

    So the system does work to limit power internally, except when someone uses an external threat argument to limit personal freedoms & start illegal wars, and that has happened in both the last two president's time.

    Moreover, both parties have gone out of their way to support trade deals, favour corporate interests, and ensure that those on the lower rung of the economic fortune ladder continue to lose out on opportunity compared to the past. It's only a question of degrees.

    This year, for the first time in a while, we have two candidates on either side who are calling it as they see it, not beholden to the party apparatus and the moneyed interests, and representing the voice of the people. This year shows the biggest crack in the power brokering that I've every seen, against absolutely all odds. A Black Swan event.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited June 2016 Posts: 17,801
    Here's mine:
    2347330740.jpg
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Here are my results from the I-Side-With Election Test (just click the "share"-button and then there's an option to convert the results into a .jpg-image):
    QPUl0Rr.jpg
    slsGLoY.jpg
    6KHbAVq.jpg
    3WHEv2c.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    And here's mine.

    2347378171.jpg

    2347378171_1.jpg

    untitled.jpg

    i_Side_With_7.jpg

    Interesting results. Pretty middle of the road in terms of party affiliations (which is the case) but closer to Trump than Republican ideology and also closer to Bernie than Socialist ideology, according to their assessment criteria. I wonder if that means both Bernie and Trump are more middle of the road?

    The results reflect how I actually feel too (as I said at the start of this thread, either Trump or Bernie works for me with Hills third).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    bondjames wrote: »

    The results reflect how I actually feel too (as I said at the start of this thread, either Trump or Bernie works for me with Hills third).
    Ever see The Omen III? Trump is Damien, man!!! The Son of Satan!!!
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    And here's mine.

    2347378171.jpg

    2347378171.jpg

    Interesting results. Pretty middle of the road in terms of party affiliations (which is the case) but closer to Trump than Republican ideology and also closer to Bernie than Socialist ideology, according to their assessment criteria. I wonder if that means both Bernie and Trump are more middle of the road?

    The results reflect how I actually feel too (as I said at the start of this thread, either Trump or Bernie works for me with Hills third).

    Could I analize the rest of your results? The issues for instance? The graph etc ;-). Because I really wonder how important education is for you. For me this is the pivotal issue of mankind, of our long-term future prospects, of the next generation that is yet to be born....
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    I am surrounded by Trumpites.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Could I analize the rest of your results? The issues for instance? The graph etc ;-). Because I really wonder how important education is for you. For me this is the pivotal issue of mankind, of our long-term future prospects, of the next generation that is yet to be born....
    No. That would be confidential and entirely inappropriate. You can ask for my opinion but not attempt to dig into my data. I wondered if you would try to do that actually.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The results reflect how I actually feel too (as I said at the start of this thread, either Trump or Bernie works for me with Hills third).
    Ever see The Omen III? Trump is Damien, man!!! The Son of Satan!!!
    So, the way this thread is developing, I must be a supporter of the dark side then. Lucky me.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could I analize the rest of your results? The issues for instance? The graph etc ;-). Because I really wonder how important education is for you. For me this is the pivotal issue of mankind, of our long-term future prospects, of the next generation that is yet to be born....
    No. That would be confidential and entirely inappropriate. You can ask for my opinion but not attempt to dig into my data. I wondered if you would try to do that actually.

    For you that is. And I respect that. But then there's no discussion possible with you about the issues. I have a different opinion about it. My opinions on the issues are entirely open and I find it completely relevant and appropriate. Because in the end that's what it is about.


    Luckily others simply post their entire voting breakdown with this link :-).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Could I analize the rest of your results? The issues for instance? The graph etc ;-). Because I really wonder how important education is for you. For me this is the pivotal issue of mankind, of our long-term future prospects, of the next generation that is yet to be born....
    No. That would be confidential and entirely inappropriate. You can ask for my opinion but not attempt to dig into my data. I wondered if you would try to do that actually.

    For you that is. And I respect that. But then there's no discussion possible with you about the issues. I have a different opinion about it. My opinions on the issues are entirely open and I find it completely relevant and appropriate. Because in the end that's what it is about.


    Luckily others simply post their entire voting breakdown with this link :-).
    As I said, if you want to ask me, go right ahead. I did the test you posted and the results were interesting. I'm glad you respect privacy. So do I.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I am surrounded by Trumpites.
    Not in the least, I had Bernie come on top with 95%..... But then again, I'm Dutch.. ;-)
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    I am surrounded by Trumpites.

    One Trumpite & you're surrounded? Doesn't take much to surround you I guess...
    :-\"
This discussion has been closed.