• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think you are smart enough to be a good president?

Do you have the knowledge to be a good and effective president?

  • Total voters
    50
EMNofSeattle said:
Well so did the founders apparently because the constitution requires the advice and consent of the senate for confirmation.....
Click to expand...

the other side of this requirement is they have to do it, which they have failed in recent months

to me it would be interesting if the current SCOTUS ordered the senate to start confirmation hearings
 
chromium said:
the other side of this requirement is they have to do it, which they have failed in recent months

to me it would be interesting if the current SCOTUS ordered the senate to start confirmation hearings
Click to expand...



first, someone would have to file a lawsuit against the senate

it then would have to get all the way to the supreme court

in other words, its not going to happen.

its even questionable if the supreme court would have any such jurisdiction.

that being said, the GOP is wrong to dick around with Garland's nomination.
 
TurtleDude said:
first, someone would have to file a lawsuit against the senate

it then would have to get all the way to the supreme court

in other words, its not going to happen.

its even questionable if the supreme court would have any such jurisdiction.

that being said, the GOP is wrong to dick around with Garland's nomination.
Click to expand...

i know this but Garland certainly would have cause to sue

the real question is how to enforce a ruling against the senate. I guess to try to hold in contempt senators who continue to block the hearing (this would be a great way to get anything passed)

if Hillary does win and this nonsense continues, i wouldn't bet against any possibility
 
chromium said:
There hasn't been a "good and effective" president in forever, but if the standard is someone like Lincoln, i'd have to say no, it takes a truly exceptional mind, along with other qualities i don't possess

And this has been my complaint about who we have chosen for recent presidents - the person in this position should be 'the best among us', not the 100 millionth best (Bush II or Trump) or even 100,000th best. I believe even if the senate wasn't so god awful, Obama's presidency would not have lived up to this. Whether he has the intelligence for it is arguable, but he is too keen on upholding the lobbyist interests. With the following he had back in 2008, he could have really worked state by state to bring down any politician from either party who didn't stop whoring out to banks and big pharma and big oil etc. He could've ended the DEA, he could've done so much...but he doesn't have the other qualities
Click to expand...

Lincoln was a ****ing dickhead that didn't deserve the job.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Do you think that you currently have the knowledge to be a good and effective president?
Click to expand...

Who'd want that gig in the first place? But to reflect on that I want to be an artist. And who'd want that gig?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
How dare anyone oppose chattel slavery...
Click to expand...

Not even what I'm talking about. His career well before he was president showed he was a dickhead.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Do you think that you currently have the knowledge to be a good and effective president?
Click to expand...

I don't think you have to be amazingly smart to be a good President. Having good character is also an important attribute. Having good judgement is also important. The Unabomber was smarter than any President we've ever had but he wouldn't make a good President.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
up until Bork there wasn't a real danger of a judicial extremist overturning all of the civil rights progress that was already adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The nominee can be the top of their class in whatever law school you want to name, if they believe against the constitution, against civil rights, and believe that personal liberty is why america is "slouching towards gommorah" They don't get to be on my country's high court, because we have checks and balances. if the framers intended for the president to have 100% say in choosing judges they would've wrote the constitution to reflect that.
Click to expand...

On what grounds shouldn't it be overturned? The civil rights act clearly violates the first and thirteen amendment.
 
chromium said:
i know this but Garland certainly would have cause to sue

the real question is how to enforce a ruling against the senate. I guess to try to hold in contempt senators who continue to block the hearing (this would be a great way to get anything passed)

if Hillary does win and this nonsense continues, i wouldn't bet against any possibility
Click to expand...

it would be an interesting legal issue

what was the line of -was it Jackson-
you have made your ruling mr Justice, now go ahead and enforce it?
 
TurtleDude said:
it would be an interesting legal issue

what was the line of -was it Jackson-
you have made your ruling mr Justice, now go ahead and enforce it?
Click to expand...

Worchester was freed as ordered and the ruling did eventually enforce tribal sovereignty but yeah, Jackson continued to slaughter and pilfer from natives. Partly this is because Marshall wanted to avoid tangling with the executive, so the wording made no demands on Jackson. His famous line was actually political and a warning to the court to never challenge him

I think it's much harder though for the court to reign in the president (who is immune from prosecution) than senators. The survival of the judicial also depends on replacements. They won't let this continue
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Do you think that you currently have the knowledge to be a good and effective president?
Click to expand...

Oh hell no. I'd be lucky to last a week. That job is insanely demanding and is the single most scrutinized position in the world.
 
Intelligence and knowledge? Sure. At least, I'd certainly make up for any gaps in knowledge as necessary.

But I lack other things, like the ability to relentlessly lie and bull****. Like patience with bull****ters and bull**** in general. Like engaging in or turning a blind eye to slimey dealings. Like all the faux relations required to succeed, particularly these days.






I'd basically have to emulate T.R. to succeed, and I just don't have quite that stamina any more. Or perhaps I do have that stamina, but just don't want to dig that deep anymore.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
I normally would have answered "hell to the no." But lately, I don't know...maybe.

Actually, I take that back. I'd do ****ing terrible in negotiations and public debates.
Click to expand...

Use Executive Orders. Call for a National Plebiscite on mandatory Mins in the House & Senate.
In the event that US Military are deployed to fight, a Committee, Non Partisan to be embedded in the front lines. As vacancies arise, they would be filled by the party that happened to lose one member.
 
I think I'm a solid leader, I'm a good delegator/manager, and a pretty quick study on people. Maybe the hubris, but honestly...yeah, I think I could do the job. I'm a solid public speaker, and I can smell bull**** and brown nosing a mile off. Pretty sure I could cobble together a good team of people that I would trust...some experts, some generalists, and a politician or two, and point the appropriate people at the appropriate problems.


I will wager the toughest part of the job is not ripping your hair out and clawing your eyes in madness at the shear, brutal, insurmountable stupidity, aragance, and laziness of congress and the senate.

And dealing with a few of the forign dignitaries is probably not much fun either.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Do you think that you currently have the knowledge to be a good and effective president?
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that i'm intelligent enough, but i am quite certain that i lack the breadth of knowledge appropriate to the station.

Surprised no one has brought this in yet... :

8c036fb2a3f912ab640b4e5ce18c430a.jpg


On a side note, i think it'd be ****ing hilarious for Al Franken to be elected president.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Do you think that you currently have the knowledge to be a good and effective president?
Click to expand...

Yes. I in fact am quite sure the country would be better off than most Americans believe is possible. I've studied politics, geopolitics, and economics my whole life. And I know what works and what doesn't.

One caveat here. If you are saying could I run the office of President better the answer is yes. But if you are saying could I do so all alone with no assistance of course the answer is no. No one has the concentrated expertise in every area of concentration or the time and energy to handle every minute detail. This is in large part the reason central planning was a dismal failure. If this is indeed your implication then no, what you are suggesting is central planning which doesn't work.

Interestingly enough this is perhaps what might make Trump a very effective President. Trump is a consummate manager... much like Reagan. He doesn't necessarily know the minute details of everything, but he does know how to manage people to get the job done. He knows you have to put the right experts in the right places, give them the direction and authority to get the job you want done done. And if they don't perform then you have to be willing to hold their feet to the fire and replace them if necessary. Other qualities he possesses are a love of country and FU money. He isn't up for sale like Hillary because he doesn't need the money. So he isn't beholden to anyone. You have to know the right direction to steer people on a wide variety of subjects. Most importantly in the fields of economics and geopolitics.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Do you think that you currently have the knowledge to be a good and effective president?
Click to expand...

Do you mean knowledge or intelligence? And what kind of each? You could be really intelligent at drumming up hatred like Trump, for example, but that doesn't make you a good pick.
 
Do you think you are smart enough to be a good president?
Click to expand...

i'm smart enough to not want the job. i would prefer a senate seat. could i do a good job at that? maybe. i'd definitely give it a shot, given the opportunity.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Do you mean knowledge or intelligence? And what kind of each? You could be really intelligent at drumming up hatred like Trump, for example, but that doesn't make you a good pick.
Click to expand...

Liberals just hate period. If Trump had run as a Democrat (he probably could have) they would love him. Liberals are self-righteous and resentful people to a large extent. They often fall into one of two categories. The first are under-achievers who look around and see anyone else who has earned more than they have and their jealousy and greed causes them to demand redress. "Someone must fix this, they have more than I do." The second often tend to be moderately successful and even educated if you consider liberal education an education. They feel guilty about their holdings and it gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling to spend other-people's-money (OPM). They aren't generous people by nature yet their guilt compels them to want to do something. Just not if means their own sacrifice. Both types of liberals are nothing if not greedy and selfish. But it makes them feel good to think they are somehow superior and caring because they favor spending OPM.

Conservatives tend to be much more generous with their own wealth. They tend to sacrifice directly of themselves regardless of whether they are religious or not. They tend to be far and away more educated, especially in regard to technical subject matter. They have a much firmer grasp on the nature of the problems we face and tend to more fully understand economics and human nature. So not only does their sense of kindness towards their fellow man compel them to sacrifice of themselves, they also seek to fix the issues which prevent the poor from enjoying all the benefits capitalism has to offer and is most effective at bringing about.

It makes liberals feel superior and it often spews forth with statements like, "You just want the elderly eating dog-food and our school children starving. You want our unemployed laying on the street". Very self-righteous of them. They love assuming they hold the high ground. It makes them feel good to believe they care more than Conservatives for their fellow man. It allows them to dismiss Conservative policies without having to take the time to actually understand capitalism. Conservatives not only have more compassion for their fellow man it has compelled them to take the time to learn how best to help them. They understand capitalism is far and away the best way to help less fortunate Americans and indeed the poor of the world in general.
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
i'm smart enough to not want the job. i would prefer a senate seat. could i do a good job at that? maybe. i'd definitely give it a shot, given the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Which brings up a very good point.

Given the culture of dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence that exists in Washington DC (and in the White House in particular), who in their right mind would even want to move there and try to effect meaningful change for the better?

I mean, it has to happen, don't get me wrong.
Our government is broken, and in bad need of an overhaul.
But it would be like pissing into the wind.
Futile and messy.


I myself checked "YES" in the poll that the OP provided.
I'm plenty knowledgeable, I have years of organizational and leadership experience, I understand the military and foreign affairs, and my IQ has been consistently revealed to be (in standardized testing) at 129.

But good GOD.
The thought of wading into that cesspool of a broken, corrupt city, and presiding over a Congress of fools & crooks, and trying to promote a culture of Constitutional responsibility to the (now political and morally-bankrupt) US Supreme Court?
It's staggeringly-unattractive.

:(
 
"Do you have the knowledge to be a good and effective president?"

Probably not, and I would be disqualified for other reasons too. I have way too many skeletons in the closet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom