View Poll Results: Who is the most dynamic and inspiring political leader in modern history?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Donald Trump

    1 10.00%
  • Barrack Obama

    2 20.00%
  • Ronald Reagan

    0 0%
  • Adolph Hitler

    2 20.00%
  • Other (give name in your post)

    5 50.00%
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61

Thread: Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

  1. Top | #31
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    proletariat appears to be one of those without any real world experience.

    Without presidential leadership our congress is design by multiple committees and we see how that is. Curently no possible compromises. Democrats and republics ms have internal party divisions.

    The analogy is trying to hrtd cats.

    Pelosi is a good leader but she has not got enough authority to force issues.

    It is all about decision making and resolving disputes regardless of system. With us humans it is not easy. The USA from the start was and is an experiment in self rule which right now is failing. Trump wants to n
    be a Mussolini and make all decisions and his administration is like his businesses which failed. .Back during OWS someone who said he was connected said the leaders were squabbling over how to send a few hundred dollars in petty cash.

    Our state governments tend to work well. More manageable. In Washington we have referendums which become law if there are enough votes. We have them every year.

    Our federal system is a good one in principle. The problem is it requires people who are ethical and will do the right thing most of the time. Which is not happening.

  2. Top | #32
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,940
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,916
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

    The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.
    The camel is a poor example of design by committee. A real world example of design by committee is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It became unsuitable for the original intent, was years late, and cost several times its budget.
    So, which President are you saying should have designed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? all by himself without any "committee" getting in the way?

    Or which one General?

    Would you have one person only design all weapons -- every weapons system, every submarine, every jet fighter, etc.? so as to prevent mistakes which might happen by too many cooks in the kitchen? and get them all produced on time within budget?

    Let's have an example of something now decided by one person, i.e., by the President, which could not be decided better by a committee of 3 or 4 or 5.
    That is really sad. You really don't have a clue how the real world works.

  3. Top | #33
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,241
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,741
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post

    So, which President are you saying should have designed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? all by himself without any "committee" getting in the way?

    Or which one General?

    Would you have one person only design all weapons -- every weapons system, every submarine, every jet fighter, etc.? so as to prevent mistakes which might happen by too many cooks in the kitchen? and get them all produced on time within budget?

    Let's have an example of something now decided by one person, i.e., by the President, which could not be decided better by a committee of 3 or 4 or 5.
    That is really sad. You really don't have a clue how the real world works.
    Or analogies. He's the one that brought up 'designed by committee,' and thought he made a good point. No one else is suggesting that we need a president to design shit.

    Maybe he'd do better with a football analogy? Ever see the picture of the football game with the field goal? The one where the ref on one side of the goalpost is signaling that it's good, the other side is signaling a miss? Depends on their perspective.

    If the officiating is a committee, with every referee having equal say on every play, then there will be great unrest. Each play will take longer to get everyone's views, for one thing, and it'll be a mess as each one will have the same responsibilities.
    In reality, they've developed areas of responsibility. They watch specific things on each play. And there is one guy that makes the final call. It's his job to gather the inputs of the specific officials and make the one decision and the game goes on.
    This makes the fans and the players a little more open to a delay on tricky calls, in the hopes that there will be a good call in the end.
    But if you've never worked a committee, you may never understand how a committee-officiated game would drag on and on and on, with each call revisited after later plays... Eugh.

  4. Top | #34
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    'design by committee' is a general metaphor for haphazard decision making and uncoordinated efforts in problem solving where leadership is lacking. The opposite is team play with a good coach,

    Congress is a prime example of design by committee. With both Republicans and Democrats tax and health care efforts consist of small groups unconnected usual working at cross purpose. No central leadership setting a direction.

  5. Top | #35
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,984
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,197
    Rep Power
    53
    I'm pretty sure that congress, the representative branch, was set up to reflect points of view. It was not set up to get things done. Getting things done is the job of the president who was put in charge of the executive the branch assigned to get things done. As Plato described 3600 years ago representative government is the worst form of government for getting things done, yet it is the best form of one for reflecting the will of the people.

    So government is outside the frame for showing the values of committees in getting things done. Committees are good because they include more than one mind making them superior to one mind in overall probability that a good solution will result. Single persons always have single perspective which, on average means their solutions will be spotty. So a committee of motivated persons are more likely to result in one mind that has the best solution. It is a committee of individuals. The correct individual is identified to carry out the solution. My examples are Jefferson writing the declaration of independence and madison being the father of the constitution. These were committees of like minded men who found the individual to reflect their intended purpose.

  6. Top | #36
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.

  7. Top | #37
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,940
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,916
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.
    I would have to disagree. Human nature and human interactions have not changed since the days of ancient Greece. Differences in technology does not change that. The only change is the number of people in the groups interacting. Where there was once tens or hundreds of thousands in the groups, now there are tens or hundreds of millions in those groups.

  8. Top | #38
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,253
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,542
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.
    I would have to disagree. Human nature and human interactions have not changed since the days of ancient Greece. Differences in technology does not change that. The only change is the number of people in the groups interacting. Where there was once tens or hundreds of thousands in the groups, now there are tens or hundreds of millions in those groups.
    Human interactions have changed quite a lot in the last 300 years. Widespread literacy and virtually instantaneous global communication are biggies. When the Bastille fell, people in other parts of Europe would read about it weeks after the fact - that is, the small minority that could even read. Were it too happen today, almost every one can follow commentary by people on both sides of the barricades live on Twitter as it unfolds.

    The telegraph and general schooling can not be overestimated in how they've changed interactions.

  9. Top | #39
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,940
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,916
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.
    I would have to disagree. Human nature and human interactions have not changed since the days of ancient Greece. Differences in technology does not change that. The only change is the number of people in the groups interacting. Where there was once tens or hundreds of thousands in the groups, now there are tens or hundreds of millions in those groups.
    Human interactions have changed quite a lot in the last 300 years. Widespread literacy and virtually instantaneous global communication are biggies. When the Bastille fell, people in other parts of Europe would read about it weeks after the fact - that is, the small minority that could even read. Were it too happen today, almost every one can follow commentary by people on both sides of the barricades live on Twitter as it unfolds.

    The telegraph and general schooling can not be overestimated in how they've changed interactions.
    The technology used in interactions has changed but the interactions themselves are still the same. Nations still confront each other with arguments over power, territory, morality, etc. which, if heated enough, lead to wars just as they always have. Just as there is and always has been various agreements for mutual benefit.

  10. Top | #40
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,253
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,542
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    Human interactions have changed quite a lot in the last 300 years. Widespread literacy and virtually instantaneous global communication are biggies. When the Bastille fell, people in other parts of Europe would read about it weeks after the fact - that is, the small minority that could even read. Were it too happen today, almost every one can follow commentary by people on both sides of the barricades live on Twitter as it unfolds.

    The telegraph and general schooling can not be overestimated in how they've changed interactions.
    The technology used in interactions has changed but the interactions themselves are still the same. Nations still confront each other with arguments over power, territory, morality, etc. which, if heated enough, lead to wars just as they always have. Just as there is and always has been various agreements for mutual benefit.
    The difference between an instantaneous interaction and one where you wait six weeks for a response is more than a difference in the technology used, it changes the nature of the interaction itself.

    Never underestimate the telegraph!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •