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.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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
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
Personally I don't think much of Trump. I think less of Hillary, I believe you overestimate what these govt folks are privy to, other than what group they are beholden to.
Syria is a perfect example. This adms' steadfast backing of the FSA and determination to remove Assad is either a result of a complete misunderstanding of what is going on(which I do not believe) or is a result of backing saudi/muslim brotherhood proxies(which I do believe).
For me, to envision Hillary sitting at the state dept having in depth, deep discussions of what is happening on the ground in Syria and devising well thought out plans for the benefit of all Syrians is farcical. I envision her sitting at the state dept discussing just how much bs they can sell to the american people in order to further the Saudis' agenda. Which I would think will be well rewarded either in campaign contributions and/or donations to the clinton foundation.
The only positive I can see with trump would be the outside chance, as somewhat of an outsider, of upsetting the apple cart which is full of rotten apples.
