The undeniable sad truth of this election is ...

[kherg007]

Carbon emissions dropped under trump because no one drove during the pandemic.

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.

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.

 

[Valcazar]

Let me try to be summary as you make me
think and tire me out LOL

Sorry.
I've been known to do that.

I find your paragraph on democracy to be eloquent

Thank you.

I thought of an answer to your question

The least of us is anyone who is not the best of us

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%

As to how to find them and put them in power I do not know,
I did not say I had the answer

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".

How did sortitions work for Greece ?

Mixed bag, like all systems.

How about a lady living in pond water handing out swords?

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.

Yes, there have been the best of us as leaders through history
but I am not an historian

Given your new definition I'm sure there have been.

You are dead wrong about Biden. [...] He was a good leader although history will tell if he was the best of us.

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.

Waltz is a football coach, his socialists policies scare me as you are messing with the free enterprise.

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".

As to Trump listening to advisors he literally laughs at scientists right in their face and does it on TV

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[Valcazar]

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.

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.

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.

That seems poorly borne out by history across multiple countries from what I remember.

 

[Valcazar]

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.

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.

 

[Zoot Allures]

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.

Well, as to who is the best of us is an opinion. Some think Trump is.
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

 

[Valcazar]

Well, as to who is the best of us is an opinion. Some think Trump is.
Some want an Ayatollah.

So, there is the dilema.

But , I stand by my OP

Fair enough.
I will stand by my objection.

 

[silentkisser]

I agree, my point was not that Harper was extremely qualified as he was qualified only in one area and it did make a huge difference as he guided us out of the recession.

The most qualified person who ever ran for President was Hillary Clinton ,IMHO, and she was defeated by the most unqualified person to ever run for President

A person who is an expert in a number of topics is called a pantonmath. They are rare but they do exist.

People who think they know everything but do not are not rare


View attachment 353292

Notice Trump does not mention any names of people who think he is a genius because there are none, he just made up another huge lie

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).

 

[Zoot Allures]

Fair enough.
I will stand by my objection.

In America anyone can become President ... that is the problem

 

[Zoot Allures]

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

 

[silentkisser]

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

Why do you think they don't understand the problem? First, for every issue, leaders are briefed. They are shown evidence, facts, stats and possible outcomes for every issue. They then can tap an expert to come up with a plan.

There are people who are experts in all sorts of things, from geopolitics to energy policy. Now, there are obviously competing views on several things, so it is important that a leader choose capable aides and experts.

There are many who rail against the so-called elites (ironically, usually right-wing politicians who are not only rich but attended ivy league schools), but having those professionals with expertise is important.

I'll even say this: Do you think any President (outside of Eisenhower) knew how to plan for an invasion? Like, did George W. Bush draw up the attack plans to invade Iraq or Afghanistan? Of course not. Do you think he was capable to even comprehend the logistics involved in building up a force in that theatre? No. But he has generals and admirals who know. So, how is it any different to things like the economy or health?

 

[Zoot Allures]

Why do you think they don't understand the problem? First, for every issue, leaders are briefed. They are shown evidence, facts, stats and possible outcomes for every issue. They then can tap an expert to come up with a plan.

There are people who are experts in all sorts of things, from geopolitics to energy policy. Now, there are obviously competing views on several things, so it is important that a leader choose capable aides and experts.

There are many who rail against the so-called elites (ironically, usually right-wing politicians who are not only rich but attended ivy league schools), but having those professionals with expertise is important.

I'll even say this: Do you think any President (outside of Eisenhower) knew how to plan for an invasion? Like, did George W. Bush draw up the attack plans to invade Iraq or Afghanistan? Of course not. Do you think he was capable to even comprehend the logistics involved in building up a force in that theatre? No. But he has generals and admirals who know. So, how is it any different to things like the economy or health?

I said how can you choose the best advisors when you do not understand the issues?

Your case in point, Afganistan and Iraq invasion. When others were advising against invasion Bush listened to the wrong advisors and created horror

 

[silentkisser]

I said how can you choose the best advisors when you do not understand the issues?

Your case in point, Afganistan and Iraq invasion. When others were advising against invasion Bush listened to the wrong advisors and created horror

You need to pick advisors carefully. There is no body on earth that will have in depth knowledge of every possible issue a leader will face. It's just impossible. Harper might have had an understanding in economics, but he wouldn't have a clue about things like dealing with a pandemic. He might see the impact it could have, like an economic collapse if the government didn't support people, or if the virus ran unchecked through the population. He, likely, would have made identical choices to what Trudeau was faced with.

Now, about Afghanistan/Iraq. The US military kicked ass. They won the war. However, they cannot seem to win the peace, and haven't since Japan in 1945. But the reality here is there are more than one point of view. Obviously, Bush chose the one that worked with his world view. It doesn't mean that his advisors blatantly lied to him. In hindsight, they made many assumptions that did not turn out to be true. Like the belief Iraqi's would support the US mission and embrace democracy.

 

[Zoot Allures]

You need to pick advisors carefully. There is no body on earth that will have in depth knowledge of every possible issue a leader will face. It's just impossible. Harper might have had an understanding in economics, but he wouldn't have a clue about things like dealing with a pandemic. He might see the impact it could have, like an economic collapse if the government didn't support people, or if the virus ran unchecked through the population. He, likely, would have made identical choices to what Trudeau was faced with.

I enjoy thinking these things out and so do you and Valcazar so I am willing to cotinue as you make me think

Yes, it is possible for extraordinary people to have great knowledge but not in a political system where candidates go stumping for votes and elections are won on image.

Case in point is Kamala.

Her followers perception of her is one of fairness, honesty, cares about the peasants etc but she offers no substance, other than a casual overview, of live and death issues that are arduously complex.

Her advisors have crafted her image with extreme care and have done an amazing job, so far, because first impressions are very important and they needed to be ahead of the Republicain painted image of her

The excellent DNC was one of the best ever yet told us very little about the candidates except the image they crafted

Harper might have had an understanding in economics, but he wouldn't have a clue about things like dealing with a pandemic. He might see the impact it could have, like an economic collapse if the government didn't support people, or if the virus ran unchecked through the population. He, likely, would have made identical choices to what Trudeau was faced with.

Now, about Afghanistan/Iraq. The US military kicked ass. They won the war. However, they cannot seem to win the peace, and haven't since Japan in 1945. But the reality here is there are more than one point of view. Obviously, Bush chose the one that worked with his world view. It doesn't mean that his advisors

Now, about Afghanistan/Iraq. The US military kicked ass. They won the war. However, they cannot seem to win the peace, and haven't since Japan in 1945. But the reality here is there are more than one point of view. Obviously, Bush chose the one that worked with his world view. It doesn't mean that his advisors blatantly lied to him. In hindsight, they made many assumptions that did not turn out to be true. Like the belief Iraqi's would support the US mission and embrace democracy.

Afganistan and Iraq were unwinnable from the start . Just because you can bomb a country into the stone age does not mean you will win the war.

I heard no politician stand up to Bush with the facts that were
obvious at the time that predicted a terrifying conclusion to those ill thought out wars.

America had to get revenge because they are a warrior nation, IMHO

No one in the press stood against the war either, except Phil Donahue and he got fired

All that sheer terror and loss of American free speech because the least of us was leading the best of us


In America anyone can become President as the wisdom of the people decide ... that is the problem

Think of how stupid the average voter is

Tell them there's an invisible man in the sky who watches over us and they will vote for the candidate who believes it the most because they will think he was sent by the same invisible man in the sky to save us.

The truth is you have just as much authority over what God is as a religion written by desert dwellers 3000 years go. You just do not have as many people believing you

Yet, tell those same voters the paint is wet and they have to touch it to be sure.

Now realize half of them are stupider than that.