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 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

  1. Top | #21
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,185
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,398
    Rep Power
    54
    Talk about dire. How about being lead scientist responsible for deciding whether to include chevron displays for climbing and descending or for changes in altitude or direction or energy superiority management in suite of studies designed to determine recommended display indicators? Now that's critical. Don't want to make that B57 problem back during Vietnam. <chortle>

  2. Top | #22
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    Part of the job of the American president is to ally fears. Male people feel good enough to believe in tomorrow.

    JFK used his charisma to inspire us. Hitler used his for personal power.

    Gorbachev credited Ronald Reagan's personality and how he came across with Russia agreeing to the detente. They believed Reagan could be trusted. His American nickname was 'the great communicator'. It was a skill he devoped over time. He was paid by GE to travel and make speeches.

    A president is essential. He or she is supposed to reelect our values to the world. Trump obviously is horrible and has done serious damage international.

    Trump's lack of leadership skill is reflected in the lack of action in congress on key issues. He is unable to form a consensus. He does not know how.

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    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 short answer is it all depends on the people and situations.

    Trump represents the kind of business leader not uncommon up through the late 70s. Arbitrary and autocratic. Makes decisions and others clean it up. Does not take inputs and is surrounded with sycophants. .Henry Ford a prime example.

    The technology business cycle became too fast for that kind of management.

    When I rowed at Intel project teams generally worked by consensus by design. It worked because the engineers were all motivated and general of like mind. Disputes were generally resolved without management getting involved.

    On the other had I worked as a contractor at a technology company. Multiple meetings with much debate and apparent consensus, yet after the meetings no one world take responsibility for actual doing something. There was no leader. People went off and did what they felt like often at cross purpose. No one would take risk and responsibility for enacting a decision. Drove me crazy.

    In an interview the founder of Sun said they they put prole in leadership situations and select the ones who can do it. There was no apparent criteria.

    Leadership IMO is a learned skill involving failure. Trump's problem is he has never stood up to his failures.

    The tech world in the 80s moved from a top down to a bottom up structure. The saying became do not bring me problems bring me solutions. Solve problems at the lowest level. Trump represents the opposite. 'I' say what it is and your job is to do it.

    A good leader has to be able to delegate and trust.

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,563
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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.
    He should always be that. Why should any high policy decision be left to one person? The idea that we need a CHIEF is delusional.


    The President doesn't negotiate the treaties, staffing does.
    He appoints the staff, dictates the decisions, if he wants to. It's fine if he appoints the best decision-makers and lets them do it. But most often he dictates the outcome, and appoints those who agree with his bias.


    The President doesn't micromanage the military, the Generals/Admirals and down the line do.
    Sometimes, and other times the Commander in Chief does micromanage it. Why wouldn't a committee do it better?

    What's to stop a dictator from making a mistake, if he alone makes the decision? If it's a committee of 3 or 4 or 5 which makes the decision, there are extra minds involved which could prevent a bad mistake.


    But there needs to be someone at the top to be the final arbiter.
    One person only? That's just a slogan. A committee at the top can do it better. Less likely to commit a bad mistake.


    Otherwise, how does a National Government of 50 million, 350 million, 2 billion work fully?
    It works better if a committee does it. The decision-maker has to be checked by something which can overrule him if he makes a mistake. Which is less likely if there's only one who decides it.


    So the question I suppose is are you arguing for axing the Executive Branch and merging it with Congress...
    No, keep the Executive Branch but have a committee do the decisions rather than only one person. Makes a Donald Trump less likely.

    This doesn't necessarily mean a Constitutional amendment. Rather the President should become a symbol only. Or, he could be a member of the Committee, having one vote. There are probably ways this could evolve without a Constitutional amendment.

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,563
    Rep Power
    22

    Why do we need a DEMAGOGUE-IN-CHIEF blowhard pundit "leading" the country?

    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    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.
    I don't believe this example.


    They took too long and did the wrong thing because of centralized control, indecisive by group serving several masters, . . .
    Assuming you're right, the solution is to have a committee design a better system, creating a decentralized committee to make the critical decision(s), limiting the number of "masters" but still a committee instead of one decision-maker only.

    Also, your description sounds like a case of a committee that was too large. A "committee" doesn't have to mean a dozen or 2 dozen committee members. It means a small group rather than only one person dictating the outcome.


    . . . fear of making decisions, and . . .
    A committee would have less fear, because the chance of a mistake is reduced by having more decision-makers present who are more likely to catch a mistake, i.e., each one is an additional mind who could notice a possible mistake.

    . . . rigid and dated control systems.
    That's not more likely with a committee making the decisions. Each member of the committee is an additional mind which can see the need to change something, make it less rigid, and update it.

    There's nothing here fundamentally flawed about a committee doing it. All the flaws are just as likely with one person at the top dictating everything. More likely.


    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.
    And more often a FALSE perception.

    That's part of what "charismatic" means. It's someone who is good at deceiving people, giving them a false perception, making them believe that s/he can make good decisions. Instilling that false impression in people is a big part of what "charismatic" means.

    A "president" gets elected by giving good speeches which persuade listeners that s/he has all the answers and is appointed by God to lead our Country to the Promised Land.

    It doesn't necessarily mean the charisma of a Martin Luther King or Billy Graham, etc. That kind of charisma has a different function than that of a political candidate charisma. The President/political candidate transmits vibes of being fully in control and strong and powerful and omnipotent. This is a dangerous kind of charisma.

    It's the Donald Trump -- Barrack Obama -- Ronald Reagan MESSIAH/HERO kind of charisma to lead us to the Promised Land. A committee is less dramatic, less entertaining, less thrilling. But it would make better decisions, and would not be able to perpetrate the deception of the charismatic speech-maker demagogues we are getting and will get more of.

  6. Top | #26
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,563
    Rep Power
    22
    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.

  7. Top | #27
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,563
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    ^ ^ ^
    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.
    Why can't the higher authority be a committee rather than one demagogue speech-maker pundit whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for him?

  8. Top | #28
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,185
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,398
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post

    I don't believe this example.
    Agreed. People thought Nixon was on it in 1983. He had resigned in 1974.

    Korean Air Lines Flight 007

    They took too long and did the wrong thing because of centralized control, indecisive by group serving several masters, . . .
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Assuming you're right, the solution is to have a committee design a better system, creating a decentralized committee to make the critical decision(s), limiting the number of "masters" but still a committee instead of one decision-maker only.

    Also, your description sounds like a case of a committee that was too large. A "committee" doesn't have to mean a dozen or 2 dozen committee members. It means a small group rather than only one person dictating the outcome.
    The solution is for a committee to assign a person who is qualified to develop the solution then have the sense to approve what he/she had created. All committees are 'too large'. Groups should never be more than eight persons.

    Committees don't design better systems. Committee leads design better systems then get the committee to go along if there is going to be a better system. Small groups usually work at cross purposes leading to Camel designs, good for the desert but useless in urban society. Committees usually assign one person as lead. The committee signs off. So no dictation.


    . . . fear of making decisions, and . . .
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    A committee would have less fear, because the chance of a mistake is reduced by having more decision-makers present who are more likely to catch a mistake, i.e., each one is an additional mind who could notice a possible mistake.
    Obviously you were never in a soviet communist system where the people are always right and the person is always wrong. Guns are fearsome things.

    . . . rigid and dated control systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    That's not more likely with a committee making the decisions. Each member of the committee is an additional mind which can see the need to change something, make it less rigid, and update it.

    There's nothing here fundamentally flawed about a committee doing it. All the flaws are just as likely with one person at the top dictating everything. More likely.
    For the most part we disagree. I know some problems require many minds. Usually they are formed by those interested in the problem rather than those trying to make a profit. that is an important distinction. Interested minds working together on well defined problems subject to empirical verification are much different than hirelings or politicians. All committees subject to coercion by stakeholders or salary givers are to be avoided. If there is to be a committee it best be like minded persons interested in a particular problem that has a material solution.


    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    And more often a FALSE perception.

    That's part of what "charismatic" means. It's someone who is good at deceiving people, giving them a false perception, making them believe that s/he can make good decisions. Instilling that false impression in people is a big part of what "charismatic" means.

    A "president" gets elected by giving good speeches which persuade listeners that s/he has all the answers and is appointed by God to lead our Country to the Promised Land.

    It doesn't necessarily mean the charisma of a Martin Luther King or Billy Graham, etc. That kind of charisma has a different function than that of a political candidate charisma. The President/political candidate transmits vibes of being fully in control and strong and powerful and omnipotent. This is a dangerous kind of charisma.

    It's the Donald Trump -- Barrack Obama -- Ronald Reagan MESSIAH/HERO kind of charisma to lead us to the Promised Land. A committee is less dramatic, less entertaining, less thrilling. But it would make better decisions, and would not be able to perpetrate the deception of the charismatic speech-maker demagogues we are getting and will get more of.
    You went through a lot of googledogock disproving your thesis. Charismatic is "exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others". There is nothing to do with deceiving since it is the charmed who embody the word. One can build a whole world of reasons why one would be charmed by another but what it comes down to is being charmed by others is a human attribute for reasons to follow without thinking.

  9. Top | #29
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,185
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,398
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    ^ ^ ^
    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.
    Why can't the higher authority be a committee rather than one demagogue speech-maker pundit whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for him?
    Short answer people are more comfortable with identifiable characters.

    I'm sure we all remember Ted Sorensen President Kennedy's speechwriter right? "Ask not ...."

    So what grade did you skip to miss the great man theory? I don't think committees inspire peoples. What I remember is leaders like Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Napoleon, Caesar, Genghis Khan ... Never a committee unless it's something bad like CABAL which is actually five people or The Central Committee lead by Stalin, Brezhnev, Gorbachev ....

    As for products how about the SR 71 and Kelly Johnson, Nuclear submarine force and Admiral Rickover, Forty minutes over Tokyo and Dolittle ....

    Its getting to be like you're entitled to your own facts.

    You're not.

  10. Top | #30
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,042
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,018
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    ^ ^ ^
    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.
    Why can't the higher authority be a committee rather than one demagogue speech-maker pundit whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for him?
    A committee of 535 (our House and Senate) demagogue speech maker pundits whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for them take forever to make a decision even when a delay would be disastrous.

Posting Permissions

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