General Topics => General Non-Firearms Discussion => Topic started by: DRZinn on October 20, 2008, 12:46:38 pm
Title: Presidential qualifications
Post by: DRZinn on October 20, 2008, 12:46:38 pm
Is there any case in which an experienced, charismatic, thoughtful, well-connected, well-liked president who speaks well with or without a script and enjoys the support of a majority of both houses of congress but who is ideologically opposed to you would be better, short-term, than a bumbling, ineffective fool who agrees with you?
I think most of you can see where I'm going with this.
Title: Re: Presidential qualifications
Post by: sqlbullet on October 20, 2008, 03:49:09 pm
Seems to me, speaking generally, I would like to have a well spoken president who is ideologically opposed to a well-spoken congress. "That government is best which governs least". By putting the to at odds with each other, they only resolve to agree when it is really needed.
In the upcoming election, I am left in dismay. Thinking of writing in Penn and Teller.
Title: Re: Presidential qualifications
Post by: jimspur on October 20, 2008, 04:11:22 pm
Maybe, to whom are you refering?
Title: Re: Presidential qualifications
Post by: DRZinn on October 20, 2008, 04:27:29 pm
No-one in particular, but I keep hearing about experience, and how well-spoken Obama is, and all kinds of other stuff that belongs in the primaries, when you're deciding between multiple people who agree with each other.
Then there's the Powell endorsement:
"And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities -- and you have to take that into account -- as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."
If anything, if your opponent is particularly convincing to the great unwashed, that's just more reason to vote against him.
Title: Re: Presidential qualifications
Post by: Thernlund on October 20, 2008, 04:59:12 pm
If you mean McCain as the bumbler, I'd have to disagree. I think he's very intelligent, and the much better qualified of the two nominees. He's absolutely no G-Dub. Not by a long shot.
I think McCain has a hard time articulating his thoughts on occasion. That is, his mind races ahead and his mouth can't keep up.
-T.
EDIT: And another thing, McCain seems to be running his own campaign. That is, he isn't really taking any queues from past GOP campaigns (can you blame him?). Obama is running a campaign cut directly from the Democratic Presidental Campaign Template. This is the exact same campaign Bill Clinton ran. Proud, well spoken, strong independent wife at his side. If Obama is about change, his campaign is certainly no indication.
Title: Re: Presidential qualifications
Post by: DRZinn on October 20, 2008, 05:06:10 pm
I think I was wrong about everyone seeing where I'm going with this.
I'm not referring to any particular real people, I'm talking about some mythical candidate who has all those qualities, but happens to stand a real chance of ruining the country (faster).
Title: Re: Presidential qualifications
Post by: Dustinthewind on October 20, 2008, 07:34:13 pm
Quote
I'm not referring to any particular real people, I'm talking about some mythical candidate who has all those qualities, but happens to stand a real chance of ruining the country (faster).
Sound like Obama to me. He wants to shred our Constitution and take America to hell in a hand basket but he talks smooth while he's doing it.
Title: Re: Presidential qualifications
Post by: DRZinn on October 20, 2008, 09:44:07 pm
Well, "experienced" and "without a script" kind of eliminate Obama anyway.
Title: Re: Presidential qualifications
Post by: Brian Dale on October 20, 2008, 09:56:00 pm
Quote from: DRZinn
I'm not referring to any particular real people, I'm talking about some mythical candidate who has all those qualities, but happens to stand a real chance of ruining the country (faster).
I'd be against that person.
I do not think that a person who's ideologically opposed will benefit my country by being especially effective.
{If the candidate's positions are opposed to mine on some issues and on the particulars of how to accomplish tasks which do not harm my country, then I don't have a problem with that. That's not the question that you asked, though.}
Edited to add that I've thought of a case:
Quote from: DRZinn
Is there any case in which...(etc.)...would be better, short-term, than a bumbling, ineffective fool who agrees with you?
Sure: that would be better in those cases where I'm wrong. Long-term, I'll learn.
Title: Re: Presidential qualifications
Post by: wingman on October 25, 2008, 12:32:38 pm
After 40+ years of working in civilian and government jobs I've found no correlation between someone who speaks well and getting the job done, having said that I'm not happy with either candidate but early voted for McCain as I view him as the less of two evils. The past 30 years public schools have dumbed down education for social engineering, along with extreme illegal and legal immigration plus a total population of over 300 million our system is slowly breaking. We are to conform with others no longer are they expected to "blend in" the melting pot is cracked.
With a corrupt media,wall street, and government our backs are against the wall, no longer PC to be a patriot, say anything against free trade, outsourcing and your an isolationist, protectionist, etc. My point is it would be difficult or nearly impossible for a true leader to be elected as he/she would be labeled demoniac in the media.
Unless we can control spending on candidates and set up a fair media source we can forget ever again having a quality candidate.