OFF-THE-CUFF remarks regarding the next PRES.

doniston

doniston

Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
I wonder what the average poster here thinks the president should be about, and what would constitute a good Pres. the following is my Ideal:


1. I use Ronald Reagon (first term, and state offices) as an example, at least IMHO--- he was more chairman of the Board than authoritarian.:

2. To me, the ability to chose the right people (experts in their particular field) to fill his cabinet is far more important than to have "Personal" hands on experience in that issue. Therefore: He (or she) would bring the necessary factors together to bring about the appropriate result.

COMMENT? Anti-or Pro???
 
The reincarnation of George Washington that is Ron Paul or myself would make awesome presidents.
 
I'd like to see someone that will tell us the story of the threats and our responses to such. I'd like to hear that the US understands where the threats are coming from, has plans to react to them and plans to remove those threatening.

I'd also like to hear that there is recognition of the domestic issues, what can and cannot be addressed.
 
I really like Bloomberg's rationalists by the issue approach to things.

Unfortunately, everytime someone mentions him, one of the immigration loons pops up and spits out 'HE SUPPORT ILLGELA IMMIGRANT INVASION AND HE TTO TAKE MY GUNS SO I CAN'T FIHGT TEH INVASIN!'

There's little room in the world for people who think things through rationally instead of making some bland, fallacious, emotional remark on every issue. My favorite philosophy for governance would probably be the classical stoic one... where people judge things rationally instead of by thought-interrupting passion. Of course, the modern meaning of the word "Stoic" is someone who's apathetic to everything, and that wasn't the classical philosophy at all.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, it really annoys me whenever someone talks about the "invasion" of America. It's just so ridiculous it doesn't merit a response.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it will be an invasion of NWO liberals, sodomites, and gun grabbing welfare lovers. At least that's what they tell me.
 
doniston said:
I wonder what the average poster here thinks the president should be about, and what would constitute a good Pres. the following is my Ideal:


1. I use Ronald Reagon (first term, and state offices) as an example, at least IMHO--- he was more chairman of the Board than authoritarian.:

2. To me, the ability to chose the right people (experts in their particular field) to fill his cabinet is far more important than to have "Personal" hands on experience in that issue. Therefore: He (or she) would bring the necessary factors together to bring about the appropriate result.

COMMENT? Anti-or Pro???
Click to expand...


After our experience with Bush (and to some degree with Reagan also), any politician who tries to sell me on him/her being a good "chairman of the board", who "delegates" responsibility, is basically telling me that they're a lazy moron, who doesn't have the foggiest clue about implementing good public policy.

I frankly miss a workaholic president, who is deeply knowledgable and interested in all the facets of public policy. A Prez who is a policy wonk. In short, I miss Bill Clinton.
 
Warren said:
My understanding is that it will be an invasion of NWO liberals, sodomites, and gun grabbing welfare lovers. At least that's what they tell me.
Click to expand...

hehe

True.

Well, actually most Mexicans are anti-abortion catholics, and have a heavily machoismic culture, so they really emulate the rednecks of the south in that respect. It's kind of like how the Nazi's hated the communists so much and they were so damn simialar.
 
Cypress said:
After our experience with Bush (and to some degree with Reagan also), any politician who tries to sell me on him/her being a good "chairman of the board", who "delegates" responsibility, is basically telling me that they're a lazy moron, who doesn't have the foggiest clue about implementing good public policy.

I frankly miss a workaholic president, who is deeply knowledgable and interested in all the facets of public policy. A Prez who is a policy wonk. In short, I miss Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...

Well, he can still be knowledgable and interested in all facets of public policy, while still yielding that he often doesn't know as much as the specialists who give him advice.
 
Bloomberg is a brilliant man. He graduated with an engineering degree and knows a lot about everything. But he still pays heed to his advisors and keeps an open-mind about everything, not falsely clinging to certain positions in order to seem more "convicted" about what he wants to do for a small boost in the polls.
 
Cypress said:
After our experience with Bush (and to some degree with Reagan also), any politician who tries to sell me on him/her being a good "chairman of the board", who "delegates" responsibility, is basically telling me that they're a lazy moron, who doesn't have the foggiest clue about implementing good public policy.

I frankly miss a workaholic president, who is deeply knowledgable and interested in all the facets of public policy. A Prez who is a policy wonk. In short, I miss Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
Sorry you feel that way, but what I can't understand is that you put reagan and bush in the same basket. they were as different as night and day. Bush has become no more, no less than a dictator. (or should I say Chenny???)
 
I never said a president shouldn't have expert advisors.

But, he sure as hell should be able to understand what they're talking about, on a fundamental level, when they come in to talk to him about policy. Clinton was infamous for being a workaholic, and talking long into the night with his advisors on substantive policy issues. And clinton was effective, because he was so full of knowledge, that he could really get something out of discussions with his advisors.

Bush is a moron. When the chief of USEPA comes to talk to Bush, its probably like talking to a third grader. The shrub is clueless.

Ex-Bush advisors are infamous for reporting the Bush never asks any questions, and he is vastly incurious. Bush's former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil said in his initial job interview with bush, bush never asked him any substantive questions - not on O'Neils view of economic policy, tax policy, fiscal policy...nothing.

Having morons like that in the oval office is dangerous.
 
I really don't even know why Bush wanted to be president. Really - the Republicans won the race, not Bush, but Bush is such an idiot he's practically killed the REpublicans.

I wasn't saying the the president should be a moron, Cypress. Certainly they should be very involved. But a "chief of the board" style of governing doesn't necessarily mean they are an idiot.
 
WM,

Of course a president, as Head of State, doesn't really write policy papers, or sit around writing theses on health care. The whole "chairman of the board" thing is a caricature. Of course, they're all like chairman of the boards.

I just want somebody who actually understands the nuts and bolts of policy. Bill Gates doesn't write software code, but you better believe he fundamentally understands the nuts and bolts of the technical side of the industry. And that knowlege puts him in a better position to make business decisions.

Bush doesn't understand dick. If you took his teleprompter away from him, and asked him to give a half hour talk on his social security policy just riffing off the top of his head, he'd be floundering after about 5 minutes.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
The reincarnation of George Washington that is Ron Paul or myself would make awesome presidents.
Click to expand...
Don't let BAC see you saying this... It will turn into some long-winded diatribe posting "newletters" unwritten by R. Paul and how he is "dangerous" because he won't give all your money to somebody else.
 
Cypress said:
WM,

Of course a president, as Head of State, doesn't really write policy papers, or sit around writing theses on health care. The whole "chairman of the board" thing is a caricature. Of course, they're all like chairman of the boards.

I just want somebody who actually understands the nuts and bolts of policy. Bill Gates doesn't write software code, but you better believe he fundamentally understands the nuts and bolts of the technical side of the industry. And that knowlege puts him in a better position to make business decisions.

Bush doesn't understand dick. If you took his teleprompter away from him, and asked him to give a half hour talk on his social security policy just riffing off the top of his head, he'd be floundering after about 5 minutes.
Click to expand...
What really bothers me about this conversation is that it isn't msupposed to be about past presidents, but about future ones. Bush is an ass, and hopefully we will never have another as bad. But back to the question of style of "FUTURE" presidents?------------!. How about it???
 
Cypress said:
WM,

Of course a president, as Head of State, doesn't really write policy papers, or sit around writing theses on health care. The whole "chairman of the board" thing is a caricature. Of course, they're all like chairman of the boards.

I just want somebody who actually understands the nuts and bolts of policy. Bill Gates doesn't write software code, but you better believe he fundamentally understands the nuts and bolts of the technical side of the industry. And that knowlege puts him in a better position to make business decisions.

Bush doesn't understand dick. If you took his teleprompter away from him, and asked him to give a half hour talk on his social security policy just riffing off the top of his head, he'd be floundering after about 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with having an authoritarian presidential style, Cy? You're making things up. You do this kind of shit a lot.
 
Bloomberg is a fascist in my view. Mostly because of guns but not because he wants to take them. It'd HOW he goes about it, hiring people to willingly straw purchase firearms to prove that it can be do. Imagine what other laws he would circumvent to acheive his own goals.
 
doniston said:
What really bothers me about this conversation is that it isn't msupposed to be about past presidents, but about future ones. Bush is an ass, and hopefully we will never have another as bad. But back to the question of style of "FUTURE" presidents?------------!. How about it???
Click to expand...

Doniston... cypress cannot help it. He feels the need to bash Bush on every thread. You could start a thread on cooking and he would wind up finding a way to bash Bush.

As to your thought. Another Reagan type of President would certainly be ideal. But they are unfortunately no longer found. Instead we are left with a bunch of pandering morons (both parties) that will sell this country down the drain to all the special interest/corporate interests for the sake of being elected. In my opinion, out of those currently running we are screwed regardless of who the two parties nominate or who wins.

If Bloomberg enters the race... he would be my choice at this time. He has the experience, the financial background and enough money to hopefully be above being yet another hack.

The Reps and Dems have done a fine job splitting this country in two. It allows them to point the finger at each other and say "they" are to blame. Yet behind the scenes they make their deals with each other to spend more than the country makes yet again.... all for the sake of getting their pet projects funded so that they can pay back those that bribed them. (i mean lobbied them)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top