CDZ Why can't we have candidates that run on their own accomplishments and not by attacking others?

[320 Years of History]

Truly, if there were a candidate for elected office, particularly Presidential aspirants, who ran a campaign wherein they only tout their own ideas, strengths and accomplishments and refrained from attacking others, I'd vote for them on that basis alone. That shows far more integrity and commitment to the voters than does trying to take down or cast doubt on another candidate.

I have truly had it with the "I'm the person to chose, not because I'm good at 'this or that,' but because the other guy is/did 'such and such.' " Screw that. Candidates telling me what's wrong with "the other guy" does nothing to tell me what's good about themselves.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Truly, if there were a candidate for elected office, particularly Presidential aspirants, who ran a campaign wherein they only tout their own ideas, strengths and accomplishments and refrained from attacking others, I'd vote for them on that basis alone. That shows far more integrity and commitment to the voters than does trying to take down or cast doubt on another candidate.

I have truly had it with the "I'm the person to chose, not because I'm good at 'this or that,' but because the other guy is/did 'such and such.' " Screw that. Candidates telling me what's wrong with "the other guy" does nothing to tell me what's good about themselves.

I would agree it would be nice but the reality is the majority of American's in today culture prefer the shock jock reality show type candidate and not someone that actually can get something done...

This steam from the MTV era and has gotten to the point that it could be turning off some voters...

 

[Elvis Obama]

The Selling of the President has become the selling of government itself. A contest to see who can build the best ground game and develop the winning strategy. A contest to see who can hire the best PR and advertising talent. Not a contest to see who has the best ideas. Billions wasted to say nothing.

As to why, it's because representative democracy has failed, or is failing, in the US. It hasn't failed because of the representatives, but because of the represented. Fixing government is easy, for a capable electorate. Fixing an incapable electorate though, that ain't easy.

 

[william the wie]

Cruz has refrained from attacking the people he is currently running against and is relatively moderate in attacking the Ds. This does seem to be working.

 

[sonic]

Cruz has refrained from attacking the people he is currently running against and is relatively moderate in attacking the Ds. This does seem to be working.

That may be, but the man is a chronic almost pathological liar. Politifact rated close to 67% of his statements they fact-checked as false - far more than the other candidates. So which is worse - attacking your opponents or lying to your followers? Either way IMHO it speaks to a lack of integrity, especially in candidates that profess to be so strongly Christian.
The candidate who tells more truths and tells me what he/she plans to do in concrete terms has the highest likelihood of getting my vote.

 

[jwoodie]

Truly, if there were a candidate for elected office, particularly Presidential aspirants, who ran a campaign wherein they only tout their own ideas, strengths and accomplishments and refrained from attacking others, I'd vote for them on that basis alone. That shows far more integrity and commitment to the voters than does trying to take down or cast doubt on another candidate.

I have truly had it with the "I'm the person to chose, not because I'm good at 'this or that,' but because the other guy is/did 'such and such.' " Screw that. Candidates telling me what's wrong with "the other guy" does nothing to tell me what's good about themselves.

Does that mean that GOP candidates should refrain from citing Hillary's disastrous record?

 

[longknife]

I don't see The Donald attacking other GOP candidates. I DO see him attacking the Democrats - but in a civil manner.

He IS running on his achievements as a businessman and managerial abilities.

 

[320 Years of History]

...Candidates telling me what's wrong with "the other guy" does nothing to tell me what's good about themselves.

Does that mean that GOP candidates should refrain from citing Hillary's disastrous record?

Does the concluding statement appear that I intimated any candidates should cite what they believe are anyone else's failings, or does it suggest that I want to hear from candidates what specific courses of action they would take and how they will implement those initiatives?

 

[jwoodie]

...Candidates telling me what's wrong with "the other guy" does nothing to tell me what's good about themselves.

Does that mean that GOP candidates should refrain from citing Hillary's disastrous record?

Does the concluding statement appear that I intimated any candidates should cite what they believe are anyone else's failings, or does it suggest that I want to hear from candidates what specific courses of action they would take and how they will implement those initiatives?

OK, but this usually redounds to the benefit of incumbents/insiders, who have greater access to current information. Asking other candidates what they would specifically do in 2017 is largely a hypothetical exercise.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If the OP feels like they claim, maybe they should look into Bernie Sanders.

I have yet to hear him attack anyone personally, and I like the fact that he lays out what he views as the problems, as well as what he thinks would be a solution for fixing it.

 

[Auld Phart]

Which of the candidates actually has something to tout?

 

[320 Years of History]

...Candidates telling me what's wrong with "the other guy" does nothing to tell me what's good about themselves.

Does that mean that GOP candidates should refrain from citing Hillary's disastrous record?

Does the concluding statement appear that I intimated any candidates should cite what they believe are anyone else's failings, or does it suggest that I want to hear from candidates what specific courses of action they would take and how they will implement those initiatives?

OK, but this usually redounds to the benefit of incumbents/insiders, who have greater access to current information. Asking other candidates what they would specifically do in 2017 is largely a hypothetical exercise.

For this discussion, I wasn't thinking along that line, but since you mentioned it....I agree that incumbents and/or folks who've held federal elected office are minimally better positioned to know and understand a fuller spectrum of both domestic and international matters, yet, among Republicans, the current preference, judging by polls, is a man who's held no such office.

It's rather astounding to me that in our ever more complex and more nuanced world that the nation is keener on someone who cannot possibly know the vaguest "inside" details of "what's what" with the various foreign relationships the U.S., particularly with regard to relevant information that isn't made public for national security reasons, yet going with someone who lacks any such information or access to it is exactly what the majority of Republican voters seem to want to do. I suppose seen that way, the answer to the title question is rather clear: a large share of the populace would sooner "cut off our nose to spite our face," with regard to whom they would choose for President.

Yes, I realize that no such experience is a criterion for the job of President. It's also so that each voter is entitled to choose whom they most prefer. That doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily the best choice they can make. I might make some choices "against my better judgment," such as the one to let my middle child go to the university he most preferred, but I'd hardly act that way in a voting booth. Indeed, regardless of where I stand on any given policy, the fact is that in voting I choose a candidate who strikes me, among other things, as the least risky choice with regard to specific experience at managing the nation.

To understand what I mean, just reread George W. Bush's remarks about initiating the second Gulf War.

Regrettably in our zeal to defend America, my administration exaggerated threats which - although real - did not constitute a clear and present danger to the United States.

After my presidency I have come to the belief that the Iraq War, although well intentioned, was unnecessary and too costly to justify. I deeply apologize to the American people and to our soldiers and veterans in particular for engaging them in such a conflict.​

The key word in his remarks is "zeal." Zeal clouds one's ability to think rationally. That his zeal, and that of his top advisors, got in the way of rational judgment is exactly the kind of thing that experience can mitigate. It's nice that Mr. Bush apologized, and I accept his apology, but that doesn't do a thing to recover thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in treasure.

Of all the folks running for President, Mr. Trump is the one who has had the least to say in terms of substantive and implementable policy choices. Were the world a less complicated place, the lack of experience and insight would be less of a factor. I'm sure Mr. Trump knows just as you and I do that he has no idea of how or whether his various ideas can be implemented. That he doesn't know, however, is one fine reason not to choose him over any of his competitors.

 

[baileyn45]

...Candidates telling me what's wrong with "the other guy" does nothing to tell me what's good about themselves.

Does that mean that GOP candidates should refrain from citing Hillary's disastrous record?

Does the concluding statement appear that I intimated any candidates should cite what they believe are anyone else's failings, or does it suggest that I want to hear from candidates what specific courses of action they would take and how they will implement those initiatives?

OK, but this usually redounds to the benefit of incumbents/insiders, who have greater access to current information. Asking other candidates what they would specifically do in 2017 is largely a hypothetical exercise.

For this discussion, I wasn't thinking along that line, but since you mentioned it....I agree that incumbents and/or folks who've held federal elected office are minimally better positioned to know and understand a fuller spectrum of both domestic and international matters, yet, among Republicans, the current preference, judging by polls, is a man who's held no such office.

It's rather astounding to me that in our ever more complex and more nuanced world that the nation is keener on someone who cannot possibly know the vaguest "inside" details of "what's what" with the various foreign relationships the U.S., particularly with regard to relevant information that isn't made public for national security reasons, yet going with someone who lacks any such information or access to it is exactly what the majority of Republican voters seem to want to do. I suppose seen that way, the answer to the title question is rather clear: a large share of the populace would sooner "cut off our nose to spite our face," with regard to whom they would choose for President.

Yes, I realize that no such experience is a criterion for the job of President. It's also so that each voter is entitled to choose whom they most prefer. That doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily the best choice they can make. I might make some choices "against my better judgment," such as the one to let my middle child go to the university he most preferred, but I'd hardly act that way in a voting booth. Indeed, regardless of where I stand on any given policy, the fact is that in voting I choose a candidate who strikes me, among other things, as the least risky choice with regard to specific experience at managing the nation.

To understand what I mean, just reread George W. Bush's remarks about initiating the second Gulf War.

Regrettably in our zeal to defend America, my administration exaggerated threats which - although real - did not constitute a clear and present danger to the United States.

After my presidency I have come to the belief that the Iraq War, although well intentioned, was unnecessary and too costly to justify. I deeply apologize to the American people and to our soldiers and veterans in particular for engaging them in such a conflict.​

The key word in his remarks is "zeal." Zeal clouds one's ability to think rationally. That his zeal, and that of his top advisors, got in the way of rational judgment is exactly the kind of thing that experience can mitigate. It's nice that Mr. Bush apologized, and I accept his apology, but that doesn't do a thing to recover thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in treasure.

Of all the folks running for President, Mr. Trump is the one who has had the least to say in terms of substantive and implementable policy choices. Were the world a less complicated place, the lack of experience and insight would be less of a factor. I'm sure Mr. Trump knows just as you and I do that he has no idea of how or whether his various ideas can be implemented. That he doesn't know, however, is one fine reason not to choose him over any of his competitors.

With all due respect, I would venture that Trump probably has more knowledge of world events than Obama did as he entered the white house or has now.

 

[320 Years of History]

...Candidates telling me what's wrong with "the other guy" does nothing to tell me what's good about themselves.

Does that mean that GOP candidates should refrain from citing Hillary's disastrous record?

Does the concluding statement appear that I intimated any candidates should cite what they believe are anyone else's failings, or does it suggest that I want to hear from candidates what specific courses of action they would take and how they will implement those initiatives?

OK, but this usually redounds to the benefit of incumbents/insiders, who have greater access to current information. Asking other candidates what they would specifically do in 2017 is largely a hypothetical exercise.

For this discussion, I wasn't thinking along that line, but since you mentioned it....I agree that incumbents and/or folks who've held federal elected office are minimally better positioned to know and understand a fuller spectrum of both domestic and international matters, yet, among Republicans, the current preference, judging by polls, is a man who's held no such office.

It's rather astounding to me that in our ever more complex and more nuanced world that the nation is keener on someone who cannot possibly know the vaguest "inside" details of "what's what" with the various foreign relationships the U.S., particularly with regard to relevant information that isn't made public for national security reasons, yet going with someone who lacks any such information or access to it is exactly what the majority of Republican voters seem to want to do. I suppose seen that way, the answer to the title question is rather clear: a large share of the populace would sooner "cut off our nose to spite our face," with regard to whom they would choose for President.

Yes, I realize that no such experience is a criterion for the job of President. It's also so that each voter is entitled to choose whom they most prefer. That doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily the best choice they can make. I might make some choices "against my better judgment," such as the one to let my middle child go to the university he most preferred, but I'd hardly act that way in a voting booth. Indeed, regardless of where I stand on any given policy, the fact is that in voting I choose a candidate who strikes me, among other things, as the least risky choice with regard to specific experience at managing the nation.

To understand what I mean, just reread George W. Bush's remarks about initiating the second Gulf War.

Regrettably in our zeal to defend America, my administration exaggerated threats which - although real - did not constitute a clear and present danger to the United States.

After my presidency I have come to the belief that the Iraq War, although well intentioned, was unnecessary and too costly to justify. I deeply apologize to the American people and to our soldiers and veterans in particular for engaging them in such a conflict.​

The key word in his remarks is "zeal." Zeal clouds one's ability to think rationally. That his zeal, and that of his top advisors, got in the way of rational judgment is exactly the kind of thing that experience can mitigate. It's nice that Mr. Bush apologized, and I accept his apology, but that doesn't do a thing to recover thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in treasure.

Of all the folks running for President, Mr. Trump is the one who has had the least to say in terms of substantive and implementable policy choices. Were the world a less complicated place, the lack of experience and insight would be less of a factor. I'm sure Mr. Trump knows just as you and I do that he has no idea of how or whether his various ideas can be implemented. That he doesn't know, however, is one fine reason not to choose him over any of his competitors.

With all due respect, I would venture that Trump probably has more knowledge of world events than Obama did as he entered the white house or has now.

It's nice that you want to be respectful. TY. Now also give being thoughtful a try as well.

Mr. Obama served on the Senate Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Relations Committees, along with others, in the U.S. Senate, and as such was privy to all manners of information about world events that never makes it into the news or that even could be shared with the likes of Mr. Trump, you or me.

 

[longknife]

Does that mean that GOP candidates should refrain from citing Hillary's disastrous record?

Does the concluding statement appear that I intimated any candidates should cite what they believe are anyone else's failings, or does it suggest that I want to hear from candidates what specific courses of action they would take and how they will implement those initiatives?

OK, but this usually redounds to the benefit of incumbents/insiders, who have greater access to current information. Asking other candidates what they would specifically do in 2017 is largely a hypothetical exercise.

For this discussion, I wasn't thinking along that line, but since you mentioned it....I agree that incumbents and/or folks who've held federal elected office are minimally better positioned to know and understand a fuller spectrum of both domestic and international matters, yet, among Republicans, the current preference, judging by polls, is a man who's held no such office.

It's rather astounding to me that in our ever more complex and more nuanced world that the nation is keener on someone who cannot possibly know the vaguest "inside" details of "what's what" with the various foreign relationships the U.S., particularly with regard to relevant information that isn't made public for national security reasons, yet going with someone who lacks any such information or access to it is exactly what the majority of Republican voters seem to want to do. I suppose seen that way, the answer to the title question is rather clear: a large share of the populace would sooner "cut off our nose to spite our face," with regard to whom they would choose for President.

Yes, I realize that no such experience is a criterion for the job of President. It's also so that each voter is entitled to choose whom they most prefer. That doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily the best choice they can make. I might make some choices "against my better judgment," such as the one to let my middle child go to the university he most preferred, but I'd hardly act that way in a voting booth. Indeed, regardless of where I stand on any given policy, the fact is that in voting I choose a candidate who strikes me, among other things, as the least risky choice with regard to specific experience at managing the nation.

To understand what I mean, just reread George W. Bush's remarks about initiating the second Gulf War.

Regrettably in our zeal to defend America, my administration exaggerated threats which - although real - did not constitute a clear and present danger to the United States.

After my presidency I have come to the belief that the Iraq War, although well intentioned, was unnecessary and too costly to justify. I deeply apologize to the American people and to our soldiers and veterans in particular for engaging them in such a conflict.​

The key word in his remarks is "zeal." Zeal clouds one's ability to think rationally. That his zeal, and that of his top advisors, got in the way of rational judgment is exactly the kind of thing that experience can mitigate. It's nice that Mr. Bush apologized, and I accept his apology, but that doesn't do a thing to recover thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in treasure.

Of all the folks running for President, Mr. Trump is the one who has had the least to say in terms of substantive and implementable policy choices. Were the world a less complicated place, the lack of experience and insight would be less of a factor. I'm sure Mr. Trump knows just as you and I do that he has no idea of how or whether his various ideas can be implemented. That he doesn't know, however, is one fine reason not to choose him over any of his competitors.

With all due respect, I would venture that Trump probably has more knowledge of world events than Obama did as he entered the white house or has now.

It's nice that you want to be respectful. TY. Now also give being thoughtful a try as well.

Mr. Obama served on the Senate Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Relations Committees, along with others, in the U.S. Senate, and as such was privy to all manners of information about world events that never makes it into the news or that even could be shared with the likes of Mr. Trump, you or me.

Here's something for you to mull over:

The Illinois Democrat has missed nearly 80 percent of all votes since September, 2007. Obama has missed the most votes of any Democratic presidential hopeful in the Senate over the last two months, including a vote on an Iran resolution he has blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton for supporting.

Obama routinely avoids voting on any issue that is not helpful to Muslim goals. For example, Obama missed a vote on a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite part of the Iranian military, a terrorist organization.

If you want to know exactly what kind of senator the community organizer was, go to Barack Obama, US Senator

 

[baileyn45]

Does that mean that GOP candidates should refrain from citing Hillary's disastrous record?

Does the concluding statement appear that I intimated any candidates should cite what they believe are anyone else's failings, or does it suggest that I want to hear from candidates what specific courses of action they would take and how they will implement those initiatives?

OK, but this usually redounds to the benefit of incumbents/insiders, who have greater access to current information. Asking other candidates what they would specifically do in 2017 is largely a hypothetical exercise.

For this discussion, I wasn't thinking along that line, but since you mentioned it....I agree that incumbents and/or folks who've held federal elected office are minimally better positioned to know and understand a fuller spectrum of both domestic and international matters, yet, among Republicans, the current preference, judging by polls, is a man who's held no such office.

It's rather astounding to me that in our ever more complex and more nuanced world that the nation is keener on someone who cannot possibly know the vaguest "inside" details of "what's what" with the various foreign relationships the U.S., particularly with regard to relevant information that isn't made public for national security reasons, yet going with someone who lacks any such information or access to it is exactly what the majority of Republican voters seem to want to do. I suppose seen that way, the answer to the title question is rather clear: a large share of the populace would sooner "cut off our nose to spite our face," with regard to whom they would choose for President.

Yes, I realize that no such experience is a criterion for the job of President. It's also so that each voter is entitled to choose whom they most prefer. That doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily the best choice they can make. I might make some choices "against my better judgment," such as the one to let my middle child go to the university he most preferred, but I'd hardly act that way in a voting booth. Indeed, regardless of where I stand on any given policy, the fact is that in voting I choose a candidate who strikes me, among other things, as the least risky choice with regard to specific experience at managing the nation.

To understand what I mean, just reread George W. Bush's remarks about initiating the second Gulf War.

Regrettably in our zeal to defend America, my administration exaggerated threats which - although real - did not constitute a clear and present danger to the United States.

After my presidency I have come to the belief that the Iraq War, although well intentioned, was unnecessary and too costly to justify. I deeply apologize to the American people and to our soldiers and veterans in particular for engaging them in such a conflict.​

The key word in his remarks is "zeal." Zeal clouds one's ability to think rationally. That his zeal, and that of his top advisors, got in the way of rational judgment is exactly the kind of thing that experience can mitigate. It's nice that Mr. Bush apologized, and I accept his apology, but that doesn't do a thing to recover thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in treasure.

Of all the folks running for President, Mr. Trump is the one who has had the least to say in terms of substantive and implementable policy choices. Were the world a less complicated place, the lack of experience and insight would be less of a factor. I'm sure Mr. Trump knows just as you and I do that he has no idea of how or whether his various ideas can be implemented. That he doesn't know, however, is one fine reason not to choose him over any of his competitors.

With all due respect, I would venture that Trump probably has more knowledge of world events than Obama did as he entered the white house or has now.

It's nice that you want to be respectful. TY. Now also give being thoughtful a try as well.

Mr. Obama served on the Senate Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Relations Committees, along with others, in the U.S. Senate, and as such was privy to all manners of information about world events that never makes it into the news or that even could be shared with the likes of Mr. Trump, you or me.

Sorry, not impressed. Judging by this adm handling of international affairs I'd have to say he hasn't a clue. Same for Hillary, worst excuse for a sec of state ever.

 

[320 Years of History]

Does the concluding statement appear that I intimated any candidates should cite what they believe are anyone else's failings, or does it suggest that I want to hear from candidates what specific courses of action they would take and how they will implement those initiatives?

OK, but this usually redounds to the benefit of incumbents/insiders, who have greater access to current information. Asking other candidates what they would specifically do in 2017 is largely a hypothetical exercise.

For this discussion, I wasn't thinking along that line, but since you mentioned it....I agree that incumbents and/or folks who've held federal elected office are minimally better positioned to know and understand a fuller spectrum of both domestic and international matters, yet, among Republicans, the current preference, judging by polls, is a man who's held no such office.

It's rather astounding to me that in our ever more complex and more nuanced world that the nation is keener on someone who cannot possibly know the vaguest "inside" details of "what's what" with the various foreign relationships the U.S., particularly with regard to relevant information that isn't made public for national security reasons, yet going with someone who lacks any such information or access to it is exactly what the majority of Republican voters seem to want to do. I suppose seen that way, the answer to the title question is rather clear: a large share of the populace would sooner "cut off our nose to spite our face," with regard to whom they would choose for President.

Yes, I realize that no such experience is a criterion for the job of President. It's also so that each voter is entitled to choose whom they most prefer. That doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily the best choice they can make. I might make some choices "against my better judgment," such as the one to let my middle child go to the university he most preferred, but I'd hardly act that way in a voting booth. Indeed, regardless of where I stand on any given policy, the fact is that in voting I choose a candidate who strikes me, among other things, as the least risky choice with regard to specific experience at managing the nation.

To understand what I mean, just reread George W. Bush's remarks about initiating the second Gulf War.

Regrettably in our zeal to defend America, my administration exaggerated threats which - although real - did not constitute a clear and present danger to the United States.

After my presidency I have come to the belief that the Iraq War, although well intentioned, was unnecessary and too costly to justify. I deeply apologize to the American people and to our soldiers and veterans in particular for engaging them in such a conflict.​

The key word in his remarks is "zeal." Zeal clouds one's ability to think rationally. That his zeal, and that of his top advisors, got in the way of rational judgment is exactly the kind of thing that experience can mitigate. It's nice that Mr. Bush apologized, and I accept his apology, but that doesn't do a thing to recover thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in treasure.

Of all the folks running for President, Mr. Trump is the one who has had the least to say in terms of substantive and implementable policy choices. Were the world a less complicated place, the lack of experience and insight would be less of a factor. I'm sure Mr. Trump knows just as you and I do that he has no idea of how or whether his various ideas can be implemented. That he doesn't know, however, is one fine reason not to choose him over any of his competitors.

With all due respect, I would venture that Trump probably has more knowledge of world events than Obama did as he entered the white house or has now.

It's nice that you want to be respectful. TY. Now also give being thoughtful a try as well.

Mr. Obama served on the Senate Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Relations Committees, along with others, in the U.S. Senate, and as such was privy to all manners of information about world events that never makes it into the news or that even could be shared with the likes of Mr. Trump, you or me.

Here's something for you to mull over:

The Illinois Democrat has missed nearly 80 percent of all votes since September, 2007. Obama has missed the most votes of any Democratic presidential hopeful in the Senate over the last two months, including a vote on an Iran resolution he has blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton for supporting.

Obama routinely avoids voting on any issue that is not helpful to Muslim goals. For example, Obama missed a vote on a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite part of the Iranian military, a terrorist organization.

If you want to know exactly what kind of senator the community organizer was, go to Barack Obama, US Senator

Learning without thought is labor lost. Thought without learning is intellectual death.
― Confucius



I have no interest (outside the purely academic) in knowing that for the man has already become President. Whatever was his Senate voting record, it's irrelevant now. Mentioning his Senate voting record is to do nothing but introduce a red herring to the specific discussion shown above that has to do with what information Mr. Obama was privy. That he voted or abstained while having that information has no bearing on the fact that he yet had it at his disposal.

The point is that all of the leading candidates -- in either party -- have and have had better access to information that does Mr. Trump about the state of domestic and/or international matters on which, as President, one must craft and implement policy. The fact is that in terms of knowing and fully understanding the detailed nature and scope of the challenges the U.S. faces, Mr. Trump is the least informed person running, yet he's the person Republican voters most prefer right now. That's sad, and here's why.

It's no surprise then that the bulk of Mr. Trump's campaign consists of attacks and misdirection aimed at taking the other folks off their game. He knows as well as they do that he's comparatively speaking out of his depth in any discussion that requires one to bring to bear a wealth of detailed knowledge on the nature and extent of a given situation. The other leading candidates -- either in or out of his party -- can quite literally say "Mr. Trump, for all the best intentions behind the bare shreds of ideas you've put forth, the fact is that you really just don't know what you are talking about." And they'd factually correct. Mr. Trump's only real winning strategy is to (1) disallow the other candidates the opportunity to shine or force him to meet them in a discussion on the merit and viability of any given solution approach to an existing problem and (2) pander to the fears of the equally poorly informed general public. The sad thing is that the general Republican public is letting him do it.



There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
― Isaac Asimov

 

[320 Years of History]

Does the concluding statement appear that I intimated any candidates should cite what they believe are anyone else's failings, or does it suggest that I want to hear from candidates what specific courses of action they would take and how they will implement those initiatives?

OK, but this usually redounds to the benefit of incumbents/insiders, who have greater access to current information. Asking other candidates what they would specifically do in 2017 is largely a hypothetical exercise.

For this discussion, I wasn't thinking along that line, but since you mentioned it....I agree that incumbents and/or folks who've held federal elected office are minimally better positioned to know and understand a fuller spectrum of both domestic and international matters, yet, among Republicans, the current preference, judging by polls, is a man who's held no such office.

It's rather astounding to me that in our ever more complex and more nuanced world that the nation is keener on someone who cannot possibly know the vaguest "inside" details of "what's what" with the various foreign relationships the U.S., particularly with regard to relevant information that isn't made public for national security reasons, yet going with someone who lacks any such information or access to it is exactly what the majority of Republican voters seem to want to do. I suppose seen that way, the answer to the title question is rather clear: a large share of the populace would sooner "cut off our nose to spite our face," with regard to whom they would choose for President.

Yes, I realize that no such experience is a criterion for the job of President. It's also so that each voter is entitled to choose whom they most prefer. That doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily the best choice they can make. I might make some choices "against my better judgment," such as the one to let my middle child go to the university he most preferred, but I'd hardly act that way in a voting booth. Indeed, regardless of where I stand on any given policy, the fact is that in voting I choose a candidate who strikes me, among other things, as the least risky choice with regard to specific experience at managing the nation.

To understand what I mean, just reread George W. Bush's remarks about initiating the second Gulf War.

Regrettably in our zeal to defend America, my administration exaggerated threats which - although real - did not constitute a clear and present danger to the United States.

After my presidency I have come to the belief that the Iraq War, although well intentioned, was unnecessary and too costly to justify. I deeply apologize to the American people and to our soldiers and veterans in particular for engaging them in such a conflict.​

The key word in his remarks is "zeal." Zeal clouds one's ability to think rationally. That his zeal, and that of his top advisors, got in the way of rational judgment is exactly the kind of thing that experience can mitigate. It's nice that Mr. Bush apologized, and I accept his apology, but that doesn't do a thing to recover thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in treasure.

Of all the folks running for President, Mr. Trump is the one who has had the least to say in terms of substantive and implementable policy choices. Were the world a less complicated place, the lack of experience and insight would be less of a factor. I'm sure Mr. Trump knows just as you and I do that he has no idea of how or whether his various ideas can be implemented. That he doesn't know, however, is one fine reason not to choose him over any of his competitors.

With all due respect, I would venture that Trump probably has more knowledge of world events than Obama did as he entered the white house or has now.

It's nice that you want to be respectful. TY. Now also give being thoughtful a try as well.

Mr. Obama served on the Senate Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Relations Committees, along with others, in the U.S. Senate, and as such was privy to all manners of information about world events that never makes it into the news or that even could be shared with the likes of Mr. Trump, you or me.

Sorry, not impressed. Judging by this adm handling of international affairs I'd have to say he hasn't a clue. Same for Hillary, worst excuse for a sec of state ever.

And what exactly are your qualifications to sit in judgment of that? Other than that you are able to have an opinion regardless of how well informed it is....I realize you can make the proclamation you did, but your doing so doesn't make it so.

 

[Mertex]

Cruz has refrained from attacking the people he is currently running against and is relatively moderate in attacking the Ds. This does seem to be working.

Moderately attacking the Dems? Bwahahaha....Cruz is only gaining popularity in Iowa because the Christians there recognize that Trump is not a "real" Christian.....just claims he is to get the votes of many gullible Republican Christians. But, Cruz isn't even liked by many of his peers in Congress....he's a loose canon who claims to be conservative but doesn't mind wasting money on useless "filibusters" that don't mean anything. But like some other poster said, Cruz' ways are not too Christian, either....using his children to attack his opponents and then complains when he is called out on it. Truth and sincerity must not mean much to many rw'ers.

 

[jwoodie]

Mr. Obama served on the Senate Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Relations Committees, along with others, in the U.S. Senate, and as such was privy to all manners of information about world events that never makes it into the news or that even could be shared with the likes of Mr. Trump, you or me.

Based on your analysis, we should all support a Constitutional Amendment to allow Obama to continue the wonderful work he is doing. How can we afford to let him go?