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

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

    1 8.33%
  • Barrack Obama

    3 25.00%
  • Ronald Reagan

    0 0%
  • Adolph Hitler

    3 25.00%
  • Other (give name in your post)

    5 41.67%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61

Thread: Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

  1. Top | #11
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,058
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,034
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post


    Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?
    There are very few independent decisions that the president is empowered to make. The U.S. is run by committee or a committee of committees. We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees. The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 10-03-2019 at 05:45 PM.

  2. Top | #12
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    24,187
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,660
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Wouldn't Hitler have to take the prize for most charisma? best at manipulating his audience? And isn't one's ability to manipulate the listening audience the most important qualifier to be chosen as "leader" or "President"?

    Wouldn't another Hitler be most likely to be elected U.S. President today, if he could correctly identify which symbols or slogans are most popular with the public?

    Do we really need a "President"? Why?

    Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?
    The President, usually, is a figurehead. The President doesn't negotiate the treaties, staffing does. Still that is entirely within the Executive Branch. The President doesn't micromanage the military, the Generals/Admirals and down the line do. But there needs to be someone at the top to be the final arbiter. Otherwise, how does a National Government of 50 million, 350 million, 2 billion work fully?

    So the question I suppose is are you arguing for axing the Executive Branch and merging it with Congress... and who in Congress has the final say in the execution of laws, treaties, legislation?

  3. Top | #13
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,220
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,433
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, 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.

    So, what's wrong with having a committee decide whether to drop a bomb on Moscow rather than leave it to one nutcase charismatic "President" who was better than the other demagogues at manipulating idiots to vote for him?
    Well the shooting down of a commercial plane off the east coast of the Soviet Union during Nixon's presidency is the best example at all levels for why individuals given decision power are more apt to be correct than any form of group or centralized control and decision making. They took too long and did the wrong thing because of centralized control, indecisive by group serving several masters, fear of making decisions, and rigid and dated control systems.

    First elected presidents aren't usually charismatic characters, entertainment stars maybe, but charismatic, naw. The top attribute of a president is perception by people she can make decisions in the national interest.

    Right now we have a throw away president who was selected because the public decided the system was broken that there were no eminent threats to our nation, and that the nation needed some wrenches thrown in to it. Now the rats are coming home to roost and the threats are coming out of the woodwork.

  4. Top | #14
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,058
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,034
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    First to the notion of a president. We need national power vested in an individual rather than in a committee or a machine.
    I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, 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.


  5. Top | #15
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,937
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,843
    Rep Power
    70
    Hard to say. Too many self serving shysters and villains...Ghandi, maybe.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,564
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post

    Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?
    There are very few independent decisions that the president is empowered to make. The U.S. is run by committee or a committee of committees.
    That's not true. The President individually has way too much power.

    But if we assume you're right, then we don't need a President, because all the necessary decisions are made without him.


    We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees.
    You know that he repeatedly goes against their decisions as he wishes.

    But he also issues his executive orders which are purely his own decisions, sometimes contrary to what Congress wants.

    Why should one person alone have any power to make policy decisions? Why should he even have veto power? Why not instead have a "committee" exercise that power?


    The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.
    Why should one person alone have that power? Why couldn't a "committee" negotiate the trade deals and treaties (to be submitted for approval)?

    And you omitted the "commander-in-chief" role which permits him to in effect start up a war (including whether to launch a nuclear attack). Why shouldn't there be a "committee" to make those decisions instead of putting all that power into the hands of one person?

  7. Top | #17
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,220
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,433
    Rep Power
    54
    Committees can't flip switches since they have no hands.

  8. Top | #18
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,058
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,034
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post

    That's not true. The President individually has way too much power.

    But if we assume you're right, then we don't need a President, because all the necessary decisions are made without him.


    We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees.
    You know that he repeatedly goes against their decisions as he wishes.

    But he also issues his executive orders which are purely his own decisions, sometimes contrary to what Congress wants.

    Why should one person alone have any power to make policy decisions? Why should he even have veto power? Why not instead have a "committee" exercise that power?


    The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.
    Why should one person alone have that power? Why couldn't a "committee" negotiate the trade deals and treaties (to be submitted for approval)?

    And you omitted the "commander-in-chief" role which permits him to in effect start up a war (including whether to launch a nuclear attack). Why shouldn't there be a "committee" to make those decisions instead of putting all that power into the hands of one person?
    There is too fucking much ignorance in that of how our government is set up and operates. I have to assume that you have never taken a civics class. It is a shame that the public school system has become so piss poor that the majority of current HS graduates can not pass the citizenship test required of emigrants to become citizens.

    A sad note when a new citizen that was a refugee from some war torn country in Africa knows more about how the U.S. government works than native born citizens.

  9. Top | #19
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,806
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,306
    Rep Power
    75
    I forget which president, at the end of his term, remarked that there are no easy decisions as president.
    The previous pres. told him that on tge way to the inauguration. "Any easy decision will be made much lower down the ladder. Any hard decision gets bucked up a rung. The hardest go highest. And you have no one to buck them up to."

    "At first i did not believe him. But, then it proved to be true."


    I thought about that a lot as a leading petty officer. I was never the final authority, so i always had the 'buck' option. But a lot of the decisions i did make were bucked up to mebecause they weren't easy for others.

  10. Top | #20
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,058
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,034
    Rep Power
    63
    ^ ^ ^
    Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 10-04-2019 at 11:47 PM.

Posting Permissions

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