Yes they both suck, I wish someone else was there , but Trump is a better business man and will run the country better.
The undeniable sad truth of this election is ...
- Thread starter Zoot Allures
- Start date
I do not know where to begin so I will just inform you that you believe Trump is a good business man because he says it. Trump is the most extreme liar, every sentence has two lies in it when he says a complete sentence . His daddy gave him a fortune he has blown , he says he is a billionaire but he is not, if he did not cheat and scam at everything he would be in the poor house
They were, but they made all kinds of mistakes in designing their system since they were making it up as they went along.
They were making guesses at theory while also negotiating among various groups and factions that wanted things for their own reasons.
The result is an amazing document that was a real step forward - and was also full of ideas that have proven to be terrible and difficult to fix.
Sure.
But they are also seldom everywhere else.
Counting on Philosopher Kings is a terrible idea.
Democracy is never going to get you that except by accident anyway.
Presidents and Prime Ministers shouldn't be held up to be gods and heroes anyway.
They should be competent managers and decent people.
What?
OMG, is this "the Great, Indespensible Man" theory of things?
Holy fuck - we need fewer people who think they are geniuses and more people who just do the work and make things advance.
It is a tragedy that public service and politics have been so devalued in our culture, I agree.
But it isn't like there are magic people out there who will fix it all if we only get them in power.
You're talking to someone who has seriously entertained (and still does in some form ) the idea that elections should be replaced by a lottery.
The point of Democracy is not to find "the best of us to lead". The myth of heroic leadership is a trap.
It isn't even primarily about collective decision making.
The point of Democracy to force competition for power into peaceful channels and limit the ability of one group to entirely capture the state.
Why does that make him an enigma?
He had the power, influence, and luck to become President.
And some of that involved a certain type of intelligence.
But there isn't some generalized "if they are smart about this they are smart about the other thing" system in human brains.
It can often line up like that, but there doesn't seem to be anything requiring it.
You said they were "the least of us".
Outside of Trump, I can't think of one time we've been led by the "least" of us.
Maybe I just don't know what you mean when you say that.
I don't even know what metric you would use for that.
There are so many ways you can take the measure of someone and decide they are great.
Even Trump, who is a genuinely horrible human being on many of those measures, probably isn't the worst on ALL of them.
Biden is still probably more effective and more on the ball than most people.
No where near the least of us.
I'd trust him in power over just about every single person on this board.
OK, I clearly have NO idea what you mean by "the least of us".
This statement makes no sense to me at all.
So you have never thought a single leader on the planet was up to snuff?
Wow.
That's depressing.
I think that is an insane, unreal, and non-objective standard, but ok, if that's your standard then obviously all 4 candidates fail to qualify.
You are going to have to explain "the least of us" then.
If it is literally "Anyone other than the single best person on the planet - better at what they do than the geniuses who flew us to the moon" then obviously we are ruled by "the least of us" because there is only one person who meets that standard and the odds are they wouldn't be American in the first place.
Walz is absolutely worth leadership from what I've seen of him.
Vance is competent, but a moral vacuum.
Trump is incompetent and dangerous.
Are you joining me in arguing for sortition then?
Why do you think Harris and Walz wouldn't defer to the experts?
Hell, even Vance probably would on many things.
Trump defers to people all the time.
(That just brings in the issue of "which experts do you defer to"?)
The idea Trump is a good business man is suspect, to say the least.
But also, "running the country like a business" is a recipe for absolute failure.
The last thing you want to do is that, unless you want your country to become a shit hole.
That doesn't mean someone who is good at running a business can't run a country well. Executive experience is transferable, of course.
But "the better business man would run the country better" is just a very bad heuristic to use.
So would Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates would be examples of people you think would make a great leader?
Let me try to be summary as you make me
think and tire me out LOL
I find your paragraph on democracy to be eloquent
I thought of an answer to your question
The least of us is anyone who is not the best of us
Some are more least than others
As to how to find them and put them in power I do not know,
I did not say I had the answer
How did sortitions work for Greece ?
How about a lady living in pond water handing out swords?
Yes, there have been the best of us as leaders through history
but I am not an historian
You are dead wrong about Biden. He does not know what room he is in if he is not reading from a teleprompter. Think of his condition in 4 years if he got in. He was a good leader although history will tell if he was the best of us
Waltz is a football coach, his socialists policies scare me as you are messing with the free enterprise. I hope he gets solid economic advice before he takes us down the rabbit hole
As to Trump listening to advisors he literally laughs at scientists right in their face and does it on TV
Yes , I trust Harris to overide her ego and listen to advisors
and your question about "which experts do you defer to"?
leads me directly to my OP quote.
The best of us has to have refined knowledge on all pertinent topics or how else can they choose the best experts?
You can defer to the experts but you cannot abrogate your reponsibility to choose the experts, you have to do it. You got no choice. That is the defining quality of a great leader, so you have to have a refined understanding of the topic to be the best of us leader
Last edited:
It takes several qualities, genius is just one so the circle is small
Elon Musk is not a geniuis
He admits it
Last edited:
Considering the criteria to get into the volunteer military and gain rank, I'd say its an excellent place for the vetting process to start. Add in the mental testing done. Lessons learned pushing one's self, team work, ability to assess people based on merit and ability, so much more.
And As I said, knowing how it feels to be in the position to be ordered to your own death will give you the wisdom and gravitas when have to do it.
No there won’t. If they couldn’t do it to support the incumbent they sure won’t be able to do it now.
There will be shenanigans with certification though.
Carbon emissions dropped under trump because no one drove during the pandemic.
Trump, if he loses, will call for one. Or even a civil war. Trump is running to stay out of gaol. He's perfectly happy burning down all of the USA if he has to in order to stay out of gaol. And he knows he's got lackeys who will do his illegal actions for him. He's always had that. Hence everyone outside his family in his immediate circle are convicted felons.
Sorry.
I've been known to do that.
Thank you.
I don't understand this answer.
(Sorry.)
Who is "The best of us"?
How is that determined?
I'm not really big on the idea of some sort of natural aristocracy we are supposed to have ruling over us.
What's the cut off line for "best" anyway?
Top 1%?
Top 0.1%?
Top 10%
That, at least, we agree on.
My complaint, in fact, is that I think it is impossible devise a system to "find them and put them in power".
Mixed bag, like all systems.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Given your new definition I'm sure there have been.
That we can only tell via history is another reason i don't think we can make the judgment about who is "the best of us" now.
Walz is a *teacher*.
His primary job was never football coach.
If this is a question of "policy preferences" then it obviously isn't about "who is the best of us".
That's just the everyday normal of "I prefer certain policy outcomes/approaches".
And he completely listened to who recommended his judges to him.
He's been seen to adjust behavior and policies in various ways based on advisors in the room.
So you understand how impossible your standard is?
"The best of us are the best of us because they are the best of us and are right and listen to the right people."
If we all knew what the best was all the time, we wouldn't need a way to find that out.
So right now, the only criteria I'm getting for "the best of us" is either "Good at picking people to advise them" or "already knows all the things at a high enough level".
Other than "I don't want us electing corrupt idiots", I'm still not sure how this goes anywhere useful.
It sounds an awful lot like "Why can't we always elect people I agree with about everything important".
Which isn't how it is ever going to work.
That you consider that good criteria to use is fine.
That anyone wants to use it as part of their personal weighting of candidates is fine.
I'm just not down for installing a military aristocracy as a requirement.
That seems poorly borne out by history across multiple countries from what I remember.
That they are planning to mess with certification and possibly even vote counts seems pretty likely.
That said, violence as an option to help apply pressure should never be considered off the table with this crew.
Well, as to who is the best of us is an opinion. Some think Trump is.Sorry.
I've been known to do that.
Thank you.
I don't understand this answer.
(Sorry.)
Who is "The best of us"?
How is that determined?
I'm not really big on the idea of some sort of natural aristocracy we are supposed to have ruling over us.
What's the cut off line for "best" anyway?
Top 1%?
Top 0.1%?
Top 10%
That, at least, we agree on.
My complaint, in fact, is that I think it is impossible devise a system to "find them and put them in power".
Mixed bag, like all systems.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Given your new definition I'm sure there have been.
That we can only tell via history is another reason i don't think we can make the judgment about who is "the best of us" now.
Walz is a *teacher*.
His primary job was never football coach.
If this is a question of "policy preferences" then it obviously isn't about "who is the best of us".
That's just the everyday normal of "I prefer certain policy outcomes/approaches".
And he completely listened to who recommended his judges to him.
He's been seen to adjust behavior and policies in various ways based on advisors in the room.
So you understand how impossible your standard is?
"The best of us are the best of us because they are the best of us and are right and listen to the right people."
If we all knew what the best was all the time, we wouldn't need a way to find that out.
So right now, the only criteria I'm getting for "the best of us" is either "Good at picking people to advise them" or "already knows all the things at a high enough level".
Other than "I don't want us electing corrupt idiots", I'm still not sure how this goes anywhere useful.
It sounds an awful lot like "Why can't we always elect people I agree with about everything important".
Which isn't how it is ever going to work.
Some want an Ayatollah.
So, there is the dilema. If people cannot see why Trump, or some religious nut, is a bad leader then I give up
I stand by my OP that we are far too often ruled by the least of us in politics, religion and business
That the choice was between Biden and Trump is as solid as the evidence gets. Biden has dementia and Trump is a meglomaniac, extreme narcissist and sociopath. This is not just my opinion, well respected professionals have written about what should be self evident
I see you like Monty Python. They inspired me to write this
The Only Sound Basis for Government
As republics are refined and the democratic vote perfected, governments will truly represent, closer then closer, the inner ideals of the voters. As we craft towards this lofty ideal, the plain folks of the common land and the zealots of the well trodden paths will reach their heart’s desire at last and democracies will be governed by fools as the greatest of us will be lead by the least of us.
Our cherished belief in controlled masses voting for truth, justice and
freedom is a terrifying web spun by the three fates. The problem is not that voters don't know; the problem is what voters think they know that just ain't so.
Once that strange nymph, living inside pond water, arises into the light
and resumes handing out swords things will get better. Supreme executive power derived from a farcical aquatic ceremony is the only
sound basis for government.
If I watched a moistened bint lob that warriors sword at you
I would bow before those silver rings of water rippling towards me
and pledge my allegiance without question
Last edited:
I understand why you say this, but you should know that no president or PM has ever had that breadth of knowledge, and likely never will. Ronald Reagan was an actor! George Bush was a lawyer. It isn't really a concern that they don't have this knowledge. And, even Stephen Harper wouldn't claim he was the one who shepherded Canada through the financial crisis alone. Mark Carney and others played important roles.
Political leaders in power have advisors and professional bureaucrats that help them make decisions on these topics. They will give them the background and the pros/cons for each course of action. The leader needs to make the choice on which way to go. It is hoped that they will make the best choice (given the circumstances), but mistakes do happen (or are caused because of a politician's ideology blinding them from better decisions).
How can you choice an advisor to a problem when you do not understand the problem ?
When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. In politics you get a front row seat
