|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
A) Most of the world B) Most of the country C) Probably even most of his administration. And it's not because he's not charismatic. It's because he's at the forefront of an administration that pretty much RUINED America and turned it into a nation which outwardly appears to be seeking to ruin the rest of the world. Now I know what you're thinking - not everyone hates Dubya. It's true. I've heard of church services where they pray for Bush because he is a "warrior of God" or some bullshit like that. And I know he didn't single-handedly ruin America. No one is capable of that. But as President, he's given executive power to say "Fuck you" to motions that would ruin America, and by failing to do so he has done his part towards that end. You know, it would've been easier to just copypasta the "YES I AM AN AMATEUR" rant from the 2003 Chris Rock movie Head of State (which was admittedly poorly-made, but still hilarious and sure did pack in a lot of poignant, accurate political commentary). Actually, I might still do that: Spoiler:
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
And one or two examples of a gross generalization is excellent proof.
Because we all know that when you add any two integers together, you get an even number! Just look at my evidence: 16+16=32! 7+5=12!! And -1+7=6!!! This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
That's not much of an answer to my question: Precisely what about being a President mandates previous political experience?
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Similarly, you've not given much reason for why charisma is more important than experience in choosing a President.
Because the George W. Bush example cuts both ways. I was speaking idiomatically. |
Nothing about being President mandates previous experience, but just like any other executive job, you want people in office who have experience running things - which is why more Governors tend to get elected President than Senators and Representatives.
If you were a professional sports team, you don't go out and get a guy with no experience. You find someone who has had experience coaching and leading teams to victories. If you were on the board of advisors of a corporation, you go find a CEO with experience in running a business efficiently and turning a profit. The same thing applies to electing the chief executive of the United States. You look towards someone who has had experience as an executive of a government. Governors are the chief executives of their respective states. They have to appoint advisors, have to work with state legislatures to get funding for their policies, have to deal with state courts and their various interpretations of law. Senators don't have to deal with that shit and are seldom forced to take a definitive position precisely because they do not make or implement policy. This is why Obama gets hit with the experience charge. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Well, as I said. I believe - from an outside-looking-in standpoint - the United States needs someone charismatic enough to win back the support we've lost by having a total douchebag rule our country for 8 years. There's lots of poor stereotypes regarding Americans - that we are fat, imperialistic, ignorant snobs who drive around SUV's and go hunting purely for sport. I'm not going to go as far as to say this is entirely the fault of a President who happens to be most of those things - but it certainly doesn't help. Electing (i.e., proving that the majority of the United States supports his opinions) a man who pushes for things such as energy reform, ending the Iraq War, and fixing the education system for real, would go a long way towards reversing those stereotypes, and lessening the stigma that an American automatically gets upon stepping off a plane in, say, France. It won't end the stereotypes, but it will help. And it will certainly win back allies that the Bush administration lost through its belligerent shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude. With regard to the US itself? There are lots of things I agree with Obama on, but also a few that I disagree with him on. When I watch him speak, he sounds like the kind of guy I could talk to, say my piece, hear his side, and at the end come out with some sort of compromise that makes both sides happy. When Bush gives a State of the Union address, he'll say things like GOD HATES GAY PEOPLE or STEM CELL RESEARCH INFRINGES UPON THE DIGNITY OF LIFE and other similarly divisive statements. Yes, I know, he didn't actually say those things, but my point is that Bush comes off like a pompous ass, and he exudes an aura of disinterest in whatever it is you have to say. (THIS MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH WHY WE ARE AT WAR RIGHT NOW.) I feel like Obama's charisma and generally agreeable nature can bring about at least some progress, whereas Bush's negotiations brought about failures like No Children Left Behind and the Patriot Act. These might not be majorly strong points, but they are valid. Now I ask - what about George W. Bush's political experience improved his performance as a President? Night Phoenix, I understand the reasoning behind why experience is necessary in all those cases. But really - what experience is required to sign/veto a bill you agree or disagree with? How does a governor have the experience to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces? FELIPE NO |
However, Bush was far more charismatic than Gore was.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Cause JFK was such an asshole over the Cuban missile crisis when the whole world could've been distroyed... wait, no.
Dude, do you ever read a book? I think I kinda understand where you're ranting to, but the comparisons to GW are irrelevant. Just cause you think the guy is better than Bush doesn't mean that he's the man for the job. I think we all understand that you hate George Bush, but sadly, that's not what this thread is about. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Seriously, I understand you have complete contempt for the man, but stop blatantly making shit up. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
For Barack to actually win he needs to get past Hilary Clinton, who has more fucking money than you can shake a stick at and who already has a pretty solid lead in Democratic polls from what I remember. Plus, more people know about her (for better or for worse) than Obama, who has been in the senate for a little over two years now.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Oh, and yeah, Obama ain't gonna win. Much as I'd love to see that happen, it isn't going to. America just isn't ready for a black muslim president with only two years experience as a junior senator, any more than it is for a foul-mouthed atheist stand up comic. (s'up Stanhope) I was speaking idiomatically.
Last edited by Crowdmaker; Feb 14, 2007 at 11:35 AM.
|
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Anyway. On the last page there were some really good points. I guess Bush is irrelevant since he's done his term, but who's this new guy the Repubs are putting up? What experience credentials does he have? I think a balance of charisma and experience is essential. Being either a long-term Congressman or a glib talker are useful skills, but in isolation do not a good President make, not necessarily, anyway. Seems funny to me that people can make such sweeping statements, like charisma and experience are needed, while ignoring a bunch of other factors, like say whether they have good vision for the country, what their stance is on issues that matter, whether they can run the economy etc etc. Also, I still don't understand how GWB can be considered charismatic, when he says rhetoric so meaningless about issues so important, he makes the US look very, very poor. I still wonder why people consider Al Gore such a 'loser' when that's the 'winner'. But, back to Obama. He seems OK, but we all know in the USA, there's plenty of mud to go around yet. Can't say I particularly like any of the Presidential candidates put forward, but that's probably what US citizens have had to deal with for decades, so I shouldn't complain. Democrats have no problems with money, either. They had more than the Republicans at the last Presidential election. Sorry for all the OT stuff guys, just jumping in at the deep end as always, sorry if I offended anyone (it's after 3am and I had a shit day). - Spike FELIPE NO |
Of them, the early frontrunner is John McCain, whose experience consists of twenty years in the Senate, four in the House, plus a career in the Navy. The other big name candidate, Rudy Giuliani, spent eight years as Mayor of New York City and before that 23 or so years as an attorney in the Justice Department. (On that note, of the Democratic candidates, the most experienced would probably be Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.) What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
As far as Obama having experience, I was watching CNN when they said that Obama had twelve years of experience before he went into office the first time. Yet, that makes you think that Hilary or some other cannadit has twice as much experience.
Before I posted thread I thought that Obama might win, every where you look it seems that he is getting a whole bunch of support... Oh well, so much for wishing. Most amazing jew boots |
Obama has something the US needs right now. Whether we needed it 50 years ago or not is irrelevant, we need it now. Obama doesn't have executive experience, but the US doesn't necessarily need executive experience right now. I've asked a few times for someone to explain, conclusively, why the next 4 years of the US federal administration hinge upon the election of someone who has had experience being the figurehead of a government. Yes, it's true, I'm not a fan of Bush. But before you accuse me of ranting purely for the sake of defaming him, could you please take a crack at answering my question? There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Your idea is basically that Barack Obama should be the next President of the United States based on the fact that he's charismatic, and that anything else is effectively not as important as his charisma. If charisma alone were as important in the selection of a president as you're making it out to be, why not elect someone like Christopher Walken? This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
My idea is not purely that he should get elected based entirely on his ability to get people to like him. I support him, at least initially, because I agree with most of the things that he's said.
Charisma alone isn't the only thing important in the selection of a President. But it is something we need now. And you know what - if Christopher Walken got up on a podium and started talking about issues you care about, then what precisely is the problem with voting for him? Are you going to say we shouldn't vote actors into presidential office? I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Am I the only one who gave that way too much consideration when I read it? I was speaking idiomatically. John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD. |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
FELIPE NO |
So what, again, was your reasoning for why a lack of experience hinders Obama (or a potential Walken candidacy) were he to get elected to the oval office? I really don't understand. What are you implying that he would be unable to do? What disadvantage is he immediately placed under, just because he didn't hold a state office for 6 years?
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Obama does not have experience as a leader - he's never had the power to affect change ever and nor does he know how to make the kind of decisions that will get him the desired result. His entire political career has been centered around ONE vote.
While he's a brilliant speaker and extremely charismatic, he is not a leader of men, but rather an idealist. Clinton is Obama, but Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas for 12 years, he knew how to get legislation he wanted passed, he knew how to handle a budget, he had to make executive decisions. Obama's skillset doesn't fit the qualities of a successful President in many people's eyes. This why former Generals and Governors tend to beat out former legilslators - Generals and Governors make and execute policy. That's their job. The buck stops with them. Legislators debate and contribute a drop in a bucket vote and hope enough people vote the same way. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
And I agree with Night Phoenix. Knowing how to pass bills in Congress is not enough experience to be managing a country, especially when you've only been doing it for 2 years. I mean, comeon, the guy has to manage a budget that's somewhere in the neighbourhood of a couple trillion dollars; the least he can have is some experience managing a large company or a state. There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by lordjames; Feb 14, 2007 at 09:07 PM.
|