Just when you thought Trump couldn't be more of a douche.

[Beco]

Exactly. And while I'm less inclined to think they should have a whole lot of business experience that's exactly right.

And my reason for thinking business experience is overrated boils down to a few main reasons. Business owners for the most part don't negotiate, they demand. The President isn't a dictator. Even in corporations the board has a lot less power in practice than Congress does. The other is that a country isn't supposed to turn a profit and as long as you have control of your currency they really can't go bankrupt. (Which isn't an excuse for not getting budgets under control It's just to point out that a company couldn't do like America and most of the world has done and run up debts for 30 years and still be kicking around. Well they could and do but that's a whole nother story.)



Term limits as my esteemed colleague points out have nothing to do with the fact that people should be highly experienced prior to becoming president and ideally even before becoming Senators or Governors. However term limits are another stupid idea for stupid people that does more harm than good.

Basically that boils down to you again want a bunch of rookies running the world. The moment the President finds out that the Senator from Illinois is the guy to talk to if you want shit done he's out of office. Brilliant plan. In a well run country the people at that level of government would all be very familiar with each other. I mean like Boehner should know when Reid's grand kids get a new puppy because they go out for dinner once a month and play golf.

Lets face it, the only reason we have term limits at all is that when the Republicans had to call in a personal favor from the Grim Reaper to get rid of FDR he told them that was a one time only deal so they changed the law. It's not logical at all.

Then you didnt vote for Obama, I take it???

 

[sr71plt]

Then you didnt vote for Obama, I take it???

Voting decisions are not one-dimensional issues. You aren't just voting for an individual; you're also voting for party control of this and that. I didn't support Obama in the primaries (for the reasons bolded--not because of the color of his skin) and I didn't vote against McCain, as an individual. Overall he would have been acceptable to me (with reservations on some issues in his life). But I could not have voted for any ticket with Sarah Palin on it, and, all other things being equal, I would have voted for Democratic Party control anyway. It's possible that a Republican candidate can be so comparatively strong that I'd vote for him (I voted for the first Bush--and I wouldn't rule out voting for Jeb, depending on the circumstances). That's the point, though. It isn't a one-dimensional or one issue decision.

Anyone who does make it a one-dimensional issue just isn't a sophisticated or responsible voter, I don't think.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Then you didnt vote for Obama, I take it???

I did. (Or would have had I bothered to vote but I'm not gonna pretend I wouldn't have.) He was simply better than McCain at the the time or more accurately we needed to dump the Republican regime and stay the fuck away from Palin. I'm not a one issue voter there are lots of factors that go in but yes experience is highly desirable and amatuers should be kept away. Also Obama had been in politics for over a decade by that point, not that anybody really wants to talk about it. There is a difference between Donald Trump, Ben Carson or Hermain Cain who've never been in any sort of office and someone who has worked at the state and local level. Is it ideal? Hell the fuck no. Obama is pretty much the equivalent of a college freshman basketball player being put as the starter on the Lakers. Even if you win it was still a crazy call to make.

However we have clearly learned from Obama that there is something very important to be said for getting into that office and not having built those long term relationships with the people who actually get shit done.

Voting decisions are not one-dimensional issues. You aren't just voting for an individual; you're also voting for party control of this and that. I didn't support Obama in the primaries (for the reasons bolded--not because of the color of his skin) and I didn't vote against McCain, as an individual. Overall he would have been acceptable to me (with reservations on some issues in his life). But I could not have voted for any ticket with Sarah Palin on it, and, all other things being equal, I would have voted for Democratic Party control anyway. It's possible that a Republican candidate can be so comparatively strong that I'd vote for him (I voted for the first Bush--and I wouldn't rule out voting for Jeb, depending on the circumstances). That's the point, though. It isn't a one-dimensional or one issue decision.

Anyone who does make it a one-dimensional issue just isn't a sophisticated or responsible voter, I don't think.

My only issue with Jeb is the same as my main issue with Hillary. If one of them wins we will have people voting who have literally lived their entire lives under the rule of two families with an eight year gap for Obama. Might as well elect the Clintons and Bushes co-dictator for life and stop wasting time with sham elections.

 

[sr71plt]

My only issue with Jeb is the same as my main issue with Hillary. If one of them wins we will have people voting who have literally lived their entire lives under the rule of two families with an eight year gap for Obama. Might as well elect the Clintons and Bushes co-dictator for life and stop wasting time with sham elections.

I'm not that bothered by either of those because of the specific people. Jeb always was more in the cast of his father, who was a competent leader, than of his basically playboy brother, who wasn't. And, from the get go, Hillary was the true politician and strategist of that marriage. Bill is basically lazy, self-centered, and personal pleasure seeker. When she married him, being the woman behind the man was the best that society was giving women. That doesn't mean I'm in love with her--she just always was more the Bill Clinton political machine than he was. (And I would hardly think of them as family anymore. I think she functionally dumped him a long time ago.) I don't get the vibe from either family that I always got from the Kennedys.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm not that bothered by either of those because of the specific people. Jeb always was more in the cast of his father, who was a competent leader, than of his basically playboy brother, who wasn't. And, from the get go, Hillary was the true politician and strategist of that marriage. Bill is basically lazy, self-centered, and personal pleasure seeker. When she married him, being the woman behind the man was the best that society was giving women. That doesn't mean I'm in love with her--she just always was more the Bill Clinton political machine than he was. (And I would hardly think of them as family anymore. I think she functionally dumped him a long time ago.) I don't get the vibe from either family that I always got from the Kennedys.

I don't have any major issues with Jeb as a person. From everything I've read or heard about him he's at worst competent. And I make no bones about not being a fan of Republicans as a whole but I think at worst he'd be average.

I think Bill has that special charm that kinda transcends competence. You can be a dope if you can charm enough smart people and have the wisdom to generally let them do the heavy mental thinking while you cheer lead and he's clearly good at that.

I agree that they aren't really a family. Most people seem to agree that the reason that they stay together is primarily political. A woman president is still a hard sell but a not just a single one but a divorcee? You might as well toss in that towel right now. It's stupid but true.

Like I said my primary issue is 1988-2008 (Bush, Clinton, Bush) so right there 20 so voters existed who had literally never been under different rule. Now we're looking at a potential eight more years? Possibly 16 if Bush decides to stick around and try again in 24? To me that's a monarchy in all but the most technical sense. Which is quite possibly more effective than democracy but that's hardly the debate we're having.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Like I said my primary issue is 1988-2008 (Bush, Clinton, Bush) so right there 20 so voters existed who had literally never been under different rule. Now we're looking at a potential eight more years? Possibly 16 if Bush decides to stick around and try again in 24? To me that's a monarchy in all but the most technical sense. Which is quite possibly more effective than democracy but that's hardly the debate we're having.

BFD. Even republics have political families. So far we've had two presidents named Adams, two named Harrison and two named Roosevelt, we might well have had two named Kennedy, and not by coincidence, those with shared names were related.

 

[Sean Renaud]

BFD. Even republics have political families. So far we've had two presidents named Adams, two named Harrison and two named Roosevelt, we might well have had two named Kennedy, and not by coincidence, those with shared names were related.

True, but without looking them up they weren't consecutive like this. Course FDR (by American standards) was a dynasty unto himself.

 

[JackLuis]

http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FCKc-xaYVEAAgsTI.jpg&key=5jFSYo0F0_Dpeq6ETOVDow&w=800&h=491

Trump in Iowa!​

 

[Aglaopheme]

I would vote for the ear of corn in any situation.