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

I'm smart enough not to be.

BrewerBob said:

Smart enough, probably. Wise enough, no. On foreign policy I am thanks to my professional background. But on other things like economics I would totally be out of my depth. I also have zero experience in negotiations.

Click to expand...

But these politicians arent economists...

I am definetly smart enough to be President...

... i am so amart i wouldnt take the job, in fact.

Bodhisattva said:

But these politicians arent economists...

Click to expand...

True, but the question was about good and effective presidents.

BrewerBob said:

True, but the question was about good and effective presidents.

Click to expand...

Whenever we get one who fits that bill Americans can ski into Hell...

I am smart enough, know a lot about many topics, have good judgment, have managed and managed managers so I have the people skills. Like most of us, I would need help on foreign policy and military affairs, but all presidents need help somewhere.

My biggest weakness would be my propensity to tell the truth, as clearly as I can. That would not play to the people or the media. I honestly think "they can't handle the truth".

SouthernDemocrat said:

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

Click to expand...

No. It would rather be an exercise in frustration.
I would either follow procedure and be mired in the system without being able to accomplish very much, or do what was necessary which would pretty much guarantees becoming a horrible tyrant, or at the very least setting precedents for future ones.

But it's a moot point. I like being able to go in public without needing bodyguards or a PR agent, and capable of having normal relations with people that aren't starf*ckers.
The good prince can have no friends, no loved ones, no confidantes. Power is a prison. The more you have, the more isolated you become.

At the moment, no; I lack both the knowledge and the experience to make a good president, though if I continue down my current path and if I avert a plateau, I believe I can make a good president +20 years from now.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Well, you've asked two different questions here.

Smart enough, as in sheer mental G? Statistically speaking, I'm well within the range a lot of those people have been in, so yes.

Do I have the knowledge? Probably not. I'm a fairly educated layperson, but I scatter my education over lots of things, and thus I would probably be undereducated for some of the specific things a president needs. I would imagine this is especially true regarding the military and some economic issues.

All that said, it becomes apparent to me that our standard is lowering all the time given how 2016 is going.

Click to expand...

This is actually a virtue, not a deficiency, of someone aspiring to the presidency, as you need to be eclectic in your knowledge and understanding of the world. Individuals who are highly knowledgeable in one area will probably make terrible presidents, unless they have the good fortune of being surrounded by principled men who will join forces to make up for the inadequacy instead of exploiting.

That aside, governance is a craft just like any other craft. As such, it demands both natural aptitude and knowledge, regardless of what shapes either takes.

Gaztopian said:

This is actually a virtue, not a deficiency, of someone aspiring to the presidency, as you need to be eclectic in your knowledge and understanding of the world. Individuals who are highly knowledgeable in one area will probably make terrible presidents, unless they have the good fortune of being surrounded by principled men who will join forces to make up for the inadequacy instead of exploiting.

That aside, governance is a craft just like any other craft. As such, it demands both natural aptitude and knowledge, regardless of what shapes either takes.

Click to expand...

Well, depends how broad you scatter it. For example, I have a disproportionately large amount of knowledge about biology and mythology, considering that I don't have any career ambitions in either one (and neither is useful to a president really). I also know a bit about everything from the pre-code era of moving making, to the history of the Sherpa. And that's all taking up room in my head that could be used for, as an example, military knowledge.

It isn't a deficiency in itself, certainly, but a president ideally has a decent amount of knowledge about, let's say, this group of a dozen things, rather than much more shallow knowledge about this group of 200 things, with a handful of specialities that are irrelevant. :lol:

Leaders are generalists, but even so, they need their general knowledge to focus around things that are useful to them.

But on a purely intellectual level, I probably do have the informational aptitude. I think I'd be less suitable in other ways, and I would never take the job, but I'm sure if I had any interest in doing so that I could learn the right things in the right areas.

Smart enough? Absolutely, I'm quite intelligent. Experienced enough? No ****ing way. Uh-uh. Not by about three decades. 1/10, would not elect. Nope.

Nope.

I mean, I could pull some people in to do the stuff I don't know a damn thing about, but I frankly wouldn't know who to trust, if anyone. I suppose that could be worked with to a degree.


Edit: There's no way I could get elected though. I'd have to be drafted or something.
I have this unfortunate tendency to place my foot in my mouth when talking, then proceed to continue talking in the hope it will eventually fall out.
Sometimes it does.

Other times, people come to hilariously erroneous conclusions about what I might have meant.

Usually it doesn't end well.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Well, depends how broad you scatter it. For example, I have a disproportionately large amount of knowledge about biology and mythology, considering that I don't have any career ambitions in either one (and neither is useful to a president really). I also know a bit about everything from the pre-code era of moving making, to the history of the Sherpa. And that's all taking up room in my head that could be used for, as an example, military knowledge.

It isn't a deficiency in itself, certainly, but a president ideally has a decent amount of knowledge about, let's say, this group of a dozen things, rather than much more shallow knowledge about this group of 200 things, with a handful of specialities that are irrelevant. :lol:

Leaders are generalists, but even so, they need their general knowledge to focus around things that are useful to them.

But on a purely intellectual level, I probably do have the informational aptitude. I think I'd be less suitable in other ways, and I would never take the job, but I'm sure if I had any interest in doing so that I could learn the right things in the right areas.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you more. Leaders are generalists, yes, but they still need a relevant general knowledge base.

To my pleasure, you essentially detailed my approach to intellect. I'm very selective about the fields and spheres to which I dedicate my mental resources; I only apply myself to those that fit an image I have of myself and the world +20 years from now. It's like I'm building a sculpture that serves a specific purpose and I'm constantly examining what parts and curves such a purpose requires.

I'm also efficient about it. From the minutia of everyday life to the thickets of academic pursuits, I'm constantly applying a filter to every stimulus I encounter that poses the question: is this piece of information worth retaining? if not, I promptly discard it. For instance, I'm infamous for my inability to remember names, yet if a name is relevant to a historical event, a philosophical subject, or a political affair, it never departs my memory. Likewise, I don't read fiction, as I wouldn't want to dispense the time and the mental resources laboring without end.

Gaztopian said:

Couldn't agree with you more. Leaders are generalists, yes, but they still need a relevant general knowledge base.

To my pleasure, you essentially detailed my approach to intellect. I'm very selective about the fields and spheres to which I dedicate my mental resources; I only apply myself to those that fit an image I have of myself and the world +20 years from now. It's like I'm building a sculpture that serves a specific purpose and I'm constantly examining what parts and curves such a purpose requires.

I'm also efficient about it. From the minutia of everyday life to the thickets of academic pursuits, I'm constantly applying a filter to every stimulus I encounter that poses the question: is this piece of information worth retaining? if not, I promptly discard it. For instance, I'm infamous for my inability to remember names, yet if a name is relevant to a historical event, a philosophical subject, or a political affair, it never departs my memory. Likewise, I don't read fiction, as I wouldn't want to dispense the time and the mental resources laboring without end.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty much the opposite. I think our modern denigration of all things creative or purely for fun comes at a huge cost to our happiness. Perhaps that's why you see reading as "labor."

Instead of feeling guilty for ****ing, these days people feel guilty for having fun. Hard-core realists sneak off into their rooms and read my fanciful writing as if my words were made of meth and they'd be the shame of the town if anyone knew.

And yet they can't help themselves. No one can.

After all... why are you on DP, discussing something you'll never do and that serves you no purpose to think about, with someone you'll never meet? Seems mighty purposeless to me. Almost as if you only do it because you find it fun.

There is no shame in doing something purely for fun, rather than "efficiency," and it is immensely depressing that our corporate-focused world as taught us otherwise. We can't live without giving our minds space to just play. It makes us more kind, resourceful, relaxed, inventive.

Personally, I take great pride in being extraordinarily "inefficient," at least in the sense society means it. My existence is "impractical," "fanciful," and "purposeless." I do absolutely nothing.

Except make the world more beautiful. Ya know, that thing that's pretty much the only reason any of us want to live here in the first place.

I honestly can not answer that question since if I do I'm either lying or painted to be a moron.

I have a high intelligence. Had the chance to join Mensa until I discovered at the first meeting that those jokers couldn't pour pee out of a boot if you put the instructions o nthe heel.

But in spite of my intelligence, I lack the understanding of the political process to be an effective president.

So yes I'm intelligent enough, but not learned in the areas needed to be president. Hell I probably don't even have the knowledge to be more than a town councilman in the little podunk town I was born in.

Yes. I'm also smart enough to know I wouldn't want the job.

If people insisted, I would take the job. Although, I'd not look forward to the white most hair presidents seem to get.

I'm mostly liberal (especially when it comes to dictating how women and people in general live). However, people would probably be astounded just how conservative I can be in some areas. For example, I would work on gun issues. I wouldn't be afraid to take on the NRA. Why do they have so much power? That just isn't right. Making it harder for people with documented histories of mental health issues, violence and/or domestic violence, to obtain firearms is a good thing. At the same time, law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves and their families. Example: My daughter borrowed a shotgun, since she found a cougar killed animal on their remote property. Should families have to register the inherited gun collection? Hell no?

Rosie1 said:

If people insisted, I would take the job. Although, I'd not look forward to the white most hair presidents seem to get.

I'm mostly liberal (especially when it comes to dictating how women and people in general live). However, people would probably be astounded just how conservative I can be in some areas. For example, I would work on gun issues. I wouldn't be afraid to take on the NRA. Why do they have so much power? That just isn't right. Making it harder for people with documented histories of mental health issues, violence and/or domestic violence, to obtain firearms is a good thing. At the same time, law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves and their families. Example: My daughter borrowed a shotgun, since she found a cougar killed animal on their remote property. Should families have to register the inherited gun collection? Hell no?

Click to expand...

The NRA has power because the majority of the voting populous agree with them as does the Constitution.

Anecdote: A young marine just back for the war decided to visit the Congressional building and meet with his Congressmen. When he got on the elevator he was shocked to discover Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama Bin Laden were riding up alongside him. He knew he would need to exhibit exceptional fire control as he only had 4 bullets in his magazine. When the doors opened Nancy and Harry had each been shot twice in the head and Osama Bin Laden had been strangled to death. HEHE.

Bad Joke I know but funny. I don't condone violence or wish anyone ill. But I can appreciate the humor.

It did remind me of a statement I once heard Nancy Pelosi make. She stated, "Why do people need 30 rounds in a magazine to go hunting". Well the answer is, The People don't have the right to keep and bear arms just so they can go hunting. The right of The People to keep and bear arms is to ensure they can protect themselves and ensure The People retain their rightful position as the guarantor of the Constitution--- the charter given to the government legitimizing its right to govern over us. Regardless of party affiliation our first responsibility is to ensure the government does not exceed the confines of the Constitution and devolve into tyranny. Whether we agree or disagree with any particular policy is immaterial if it violates our sacred Constitution.

It's not just about knowledge. I'm too honest and have far too much integrity, common humanity and decency to ever be able to sell my soul to rise up the ranks to become President of any Country.

U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, other military equipment and training, the most of any U.S. administration in the 71-year U.S.-Saudi alliance, a report seen by Reuters has found
Obama administration arms sales offers to Saudi top $115 billion: report

Click to expand...

From a Nobel Peace Prize winner to the world's biggest arms dealer. I mean, who cares about something as insignificant as human rights and decency? :roll:

The argument that presidents don't need to be particularly knowledgeable or intelligent because they'll have advisers is terrible. (I remember hearing it quite frequently in 2000: "Sure, he doesn't seem that bright, but he'll have advisers.") Anyone who pre-committed to doing whatever unnamed "advisers" would suggest during their hypothetical presidency should click "no" in the poll options.

A cautionary tale from an October some years ago.

The third phase began in 1987, with the release of the first tape transcripts, which revealed that the advisers had omitted one key fact in their now-it-can-be-told article for Time: They had all vociferously opposed the trade. JFK stood alone on making a deal with the Soviets—and, in the end, was redeemed.

Click to expand...

Many histories of the crisis, especially those written before the tapes were released, portray the ExComm sessions as a struggle between the hawks and the doves. But by the end of the crisis, there were no hawks and doves; there was only President Kennedy, who favored making the trade with the Russians, and everybody else, who loathed the idea. (Near the end, just one adviser, George Ball, who became the house dissident on the Vietnam War during LBJ’s presidency, sided with the president.)

Click to expand...

Kennedy let his advisers—RFK, McNamara, Bundy, Dean Rusk, and others—rail against the idea for a while, then said, calmly, “Now let’s not kid ourselves. Most people think that if you’re allowed an even trade, you ought to take advantage of it.”

This discussion was taking place on a Saturday morning. The Joint Chiefs had drawn up a plan for striking the missiles—with 500 air sorties—and mounting an invasion the following Monday. JFK mused, “I’m just thinking about what we’re going to have to do in a day or so … 500 sorties … and possibly an invasion, all because we wouldn’t take the missiles out of Turkey. And we all know how quickly everybody’s courage goes when the blood starts to flow, and that’s what’s going to happen in NATO … when we start these things and the Soviets grab Berlin, and everybody’s going to say, ‘Well, this Khrushchev offer was a pretty good proposition.’ ”

Even so, the advisers railed against the idea. Finally, Kennedy sent Bobby to meet with the Soviet ambassador and take the deal.

Click to expand...

I know I'd rather have me in the office than Shillary, Drumf or Mr. What is Aleppo. But I would never want to do the job.

If you could clone me and force that guy to do it, then I'd vote for that guy.

In fact come election day if a 4th candidate were added who we knew nothing about, his name: Bob Johnson a cop from out west, I'd take him. Meteor 2016!

Lachean said:

I know I'd rather have me in the office than Shillary, Drumf or Mr. What is Aleppo. But I would never want to do the job.

If you could clone me and force that guy to do it, then I'd vote for that guy.

In fact come election day if a 4th candidate were added who we knew nothing about, his name: Bob Johnson a cop from out west, I'd take him. Meteor 2016!

Click to expand...

There are several candidates besides Trump, Clinton, and Johnson.

I went with Stein, because **** those 3. Also I kinda agree with her on some things.

Dunno how "smart" in terms of raw intelligence you actually have to be ... with all the advisors, guess you don't need to be a rocket scientist, as long as you have some crucial other skills.

But I am most definitely lacking many of these skills -- stamina, ruthlessness, machiavellist ambition, to name a few. Definitely not qualified.