If someone appears to be repeatedly personal, lean towards patience as they might not mean offense. If you are sure, however, then do not deepen the problem by being negative; instead, simply place them on ignore by clicking the unhappy yellow face to the right of their name.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 11
TRUMP, tonight: "I'm not a Nazi."
Huh. Kinda' has a Nixonian "I am not a crook" ring to it, doesn't it?
No. of Recommendations: 9
TRUMP, tonight: "I'm not a Nazi."OMG! I thought you were joking or exaggerating. My apologies.
Trump actually said “I’m not a Nazi.”
Folks, the ONLY people that need to say “I’m not a Nazi” are freaking Nazis.
Is this the October surprise?
Dementia Drumpf admits he’s a Nazi.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/im-not-a-nazi-im-the...
No. of Recommendations: 3
Is this the October surprise?
Dementia Drumpf admits he’s a Nazi.
The power of the cult is that, no matter what, the Dear Leader/Guru is above reproach. If he is a Nazi, then the cultist happily signs up to be Nazi.
No. of Recommendations: 7
I'd rather gather a crowd of people together and toss a pebble into the crowd, and whoever get hit by the pebble becomes President, than have Trump as President. I'd rather have a completely random pick than Trump. I'd choose Beyonce or Willie Nelson. I'd choose almost anyone of my childhood friends over Trump. I'd choose Henry Winkler or Denzel. Morgan Friedman for President. I'd nominate Albaby! Or Watching the Herd, Or Commoneone, or Pthe, or Ummm, and others. I'd nominate Manlobbi! That's the ticket, Manlobbi for President!
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'd nominate Albaby!
If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve. I would be a terrible President.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I would be a terrible President.
I'd make Dope your VP. 😎 Might as well give you your first problem right up front. 😜
No. of Recommendations: 5
I would be a terrible President.
And yet you would still be far better than Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I would be a terrible President.
I don't think so. You seem the archetypal 'reasonable and prudent man'.
When we live in a country with so many intelligent, capable and good men and women, why do we end up with the likes of Trump? : (
No. of Recommendations: 4
I don't think so. You seem the archetypal 'reasonable and prudent man'.
Doesn't matter. That's not the key part of the job.
I really hate to use him as the source here, but W had it right when he called himself "the Decider." That's the main job of the President. He decides things. All of the choices and questions and judgment calls in the federal government - and especially in foreign and military affairs - get funneled to the Resolute desk to be made by the President.
The most important thing the President does, day in and day out, is make those decisions. Which means the President has to be the sort of person that can constantly make high-stakes decisions on consequential matters (life and death sometimes) with imperfect information, sometimes under extreme time constraints. Without constantly revisiting or second-guessing or returning to them. You have to be able to make a decision and always be comfortable that whatever decision you just made, it was the right one. It's done. Move on. Everyone needs to follow you and get going. You need certainty. And since you don't have complete information, you have to be very risk-tolerant - even risk-loving. You have to love being the one making all the tough choices even though some of them will certainly be wrong.
That's a really specific skill set. It's a combination of arrogance, egocentrism and supreme self-confidence that few people have. High-level politicians usually do. Even the ones that seem "nice" on TV have that key skill. And ironically, reasonableness and prudence can be a little inconsistent with that skill - to succeed at being President, it's helpful to have massive amounts of confidence (earned or unearned) and not a tendency towards self-questioning or introspection. You have to be very comfortable in taking risks.
It's far more critical that the President be someone who makes decisions easily than someone who makes them correctly. To a point, of course - the President can't be boffing every choice. But you can't function in the job unless you're supremely confident and decisive.
No. of Recommendations: 1
All of the choices and questions and judgment calls in the federal government - and especially in foreign and military affairs - get funneled to the Resolute desk to be made by the President.
One minor quibble. Only the hard decisions make their way into the Oval Office. The easier ones are made at lower levels in the executive branch.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
One minor quibble. Only the hard decisions make their way into the Oval Office. The easier ones are made at lower levels in the executive branch.
Absolutely. To be President is to spend a lot of your working day making the decisions that are too difficult, or are too important, for your subordinates to make.
Personally, I would be terrible at that. Which is why I refuse the coveted Shrewd'm nomination.
No. of Recommendations: 4
To be President is to spend a lot of your working day making the decisions that are too difficult, or are too important, for your subordinates to make.
I'm sorely tempted at this point to circle back to my earlier comments on a President's priorities being largely dictated by the events of the day/week/month. But I'll just let it go having expressed the temptation. :-)
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 3
I agree. It's a variation of "life is what happens while you're making other plans". You may have your priorities, but ultimately situations dictate priorities more than leaders. Excrement hits various different fans all the time, and you have to deal with them as they occur, regardless of your "priorities". Whether the housing market collapses, or a war breaks out, or a pandemic happens, or some other atypical event, that has to be your priority at that moment.
If you have any spare time, sure...get the ACA passed. Or the CRA passed. Or an infrastructure bill (hopefully before infrastructure collapses, and becomes another bit of excrement hitting a fan). Or whatever.
No. of Recommendations: 9
To be President is to spend a lot of your working day making the decisions that are too difficult, or are too important, for your subordinates to make.
I'm sorely tempted at this point to circle back to my earlier comments on a President's priorities being largely dictated by the events of the day/week/month. But I'll just let it go having expressed the temptation. :-)
-------------------
The most important part of a President's job is to (properly) decide what things require Presidential decision making and intervention in the first place. When you have all that power, it's tempting to try to apply it to solve problems, even with the best of intentions. But not everything that reaches the desk needs to be there or is best resolved there.
I've mentioned this previously but part of America's problem is that we have over-subscribed our expectations of the President's role in the daily operation of the government. That dates from Cold War thinking when every American woke every day thinking today was the day the big guy might have to decide to hit the launch button. Political parties learned over the past seventy years to leverage that fear and deference to over-hype the importance of that one vote and get the public to ignore the dozens of other votes we have to cast to staff a functional / ethical / moral government. That allows the parties to fill the rest of the slots with...
Well...
Look at the House and Senate today. When the founders designed the House to be a body in close touch with the immediate priorities of the people, they didn't have Marjory Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert in mind. When the founders designed the Senate with the intention of it serving as a saucer to cool the hot tea coming from the House before doing something stupid, they didn't anticipate a state electing Tommy Tuberville to be one of those "deliberating" in that august body. I'm not sure Tuberville can spell deliberating, much less engage in it.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm sorely tempted at this point to circle back to my earlier comments on a President's priorities being largely dictated by the events of the day/week/month.
Give in to the temptation!
But it's still wrong. Yes, events happen. But part of being a President - and especially part of being senior in the Administration - is to keep the President's priorities moving even though events happen.
It's not like there weren't events of the day/week/month during 2009. But because health insurance reform was Obama's top priority, work on the ACA continued apace. Note that other measures like EFCA and ENDA and the DREAM Act didn't make it through, which is why priorities matter (okay, I gave in to temptation too). But while Presidents are not immune to events, they also have to keep their Administration on track.
Note: sometimes that's not possible. Whatever President W wanted to be in his first term, 9/11 changed that. Whatever DJT wanted to do in his last ten months in office, Covid changed that. But a lot of the time, stuff like that isn't going on.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I've mentioned this previously but part of America's problem is that we have over-subscribed our expectations of the President's role in the daily operation of the government.
Interesting thought.
I'd question whether it is We The People demanding more of our President, or is it the world becoming a more complex place over the last century, making the job itself more complicated. Probably some of both.
--Peter
