CDZ Identifying problems is fine, but what are are the solution approaches?

[320 Years of History]

Look at the remarks and policy statements the various candidates for POTUS have made. Who among them has gone beyond telling us what is wrong and also has told us specifically how they intend to fix what is wrong. How many of them have bothered to actually make the case that what they think is wrong is in fact causal as oppose to being circumstantially and outcome of some other causal factor?

I'd think by now that the front runners would do more than just tell me things I already know. It doesn't take a genius to identify what's broken. I want a President who can tell me how s/he'll fix those things. I want a candidate who'll tell me what they want to do, what the downsides of that plan are, what they'll do to mitigate the downside risks and realities, as well as tell me the upsides, letting me decide whether I agree with their rationale of the vision, their implementation plan, their proposed risk mitigation tactics, and whether I can live with the good and the bad of the desired outcome.

Now I realize that no candidate is going to present a fully developed plan (vision, implementation, risk mitigation, etc.), so that means that I have to just based on what they provide. The more they share, the better. Quite simply, more ambiguity and vagueness are not better than more detail, some of which I may not agree with. Why? Because at the end of the day, when I know what someone is actually going to do, I can plan accordingly to make sure I don't get screwed in the process of their doing so. Uncertainty is not a good thing when it comes to what one knows (or doesn't) about political candidates.

 

[GaryDog]

Who am I?

"I've got solutions to all the problems, believe me. My solutions are incredible. Nobody loves solutions more than me. I can tell you that much."

 

[320 Years of History]

Who am I?

"I've got solutions to all the problems, believe me. My solutions are incredible. Nobody loves solutions more than me. I can tell you that much."

Who knew that GaryDog is in fact Donald J. Trump? TY for sharing that. <winks>

 

[Silent Warrior]

Who am I?

"I've got solutions to all the problems, believe me. My solutions are incredible. Nobody loves solutions more than me. I can tell you that much."

Who knew that GaryDog is in fact Donald J. Trump? TY for sharing that. <winks>

Perhaps, but sounds just like Hillary also so could be her. Not much choice this time the clown or the crook.

 

[GaryDog]

Who am I?

"I've got solutions to all the problems, believe me. My solutions are incredible. Nobody loves solutions more than me. I can tell you that much."

Who knew that GaryDog is in fact Donald J. Trump? TY for sharing that. <winks>

Perhaps, but sounds just like Hillary also so could be her. Not much choice this time the clown or the crook.

Fail.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Who am I?

"I've got solutions to all the problems, believe me. My solutions are incredible. Nobody loves solutions more than me. I can tell you that much."

Obama?

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Note:

Placing election cycle material into the CDZone is an iffy proposition. There is no precedent or examples for RATIONAL political debate. So if you elect to participate in these topics -- make sure you're here to STRINGENTLY discuss the OP topic and not each other.

Interesting to see if something UNIQUE in American politics can actually happen here.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I don't know what constitutes a proper plan to present to people. Too much process would bore people and do the opposite of what's required, which is to stir them up. I think Bernie Sanders speaks to important issues, and does so in a very disappointing fashion, to me. Wall Street is not the enemy. Campaign finance reform is not the answer to corrupt government. It's a choice between one of the seven blind men describing the elephant in a limited and unrealistic manner, or the typical, political response, which is to pretend the elephant doesn't exist (Yes, Hillary. I'm looking at you).

The elephant exists, and it's name is political corruption. People give it lip service, but what do they really even try to do about it? Nothing. Nancy "Drain the Swamp" Pelosi or Barack "End Washington Gridlock" Obama? Cowardly ass-kissers.

Here's what needs to be said: We have a corrupt campaign fiance system. We have a rigged electoral system. We are ruled by the scum of the earth, and it's your fault. Congress has a 9% approval rating and a 90+% re-election rate? You people are idiots. If you dumped these clowns they would stop taking you for granted. They laugh at you. They need to fear you. Do your goddamn jobs, you lazy bastards. Throw these corrupt traitors out. Period.

Good luck with that campaign strategy.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Look at the remarks and policy statements the various candidates for POTUS have made. Who among them has gone beyond telling us what is wrong and also has told us specifically how they intend to fix what is wrong. How many of them have bothered to actually make the case that what they think is wrong is in fact causal as oppose to being circumstantially and outcome of some other causal factor?

I'd think by now that the front runners would do more than just tell me things I already know. It doesn't take a genius to identify what's broken. I want a President who can tell me how s/he'll fix those things. I want a candidate who'll tell me what they want to do, what the downsides of that plan are, what they'll do to mitigate the downside risks and realities, as well as tell me the upsides, letting me decide whether I agree with their rationale of the vision, their implementation plan, their proposed risk mitigation tactics, and whether I can live with the good and the bad of the desired outcome.

Now I realize that no candidate is going to present a fully developed plan (vision, implementation, risk mitigation, etc.), so that means that I have to just based on what they provide. The more they share, the better. Quite simply, more ambiguity and vagueness are not better than more detail, some of which I may not agree with. Why? Because at the end of the day, when I know what someone is actually going to do, I can plan accordingly to make sure I don't get screwed in the process of their doing so. Uncertainty is not a good thing when it comes to what one knows (or doesn't) about political candidates.

Well, whether you agree with him or not, Trump has certainly pointed out several policies that he thinks are wrong, and suggested broad concepts of how he would fix them.

Cruz has to some extent, Kasich has on a few issues, Bernie of course has mostly focused on "evil wal street" and Hillary, well Hillary has campaigned mostly on her "experience"

 

[320 Years of History]

Congress has a 9% approval rating and a 90+% re-election rate? You people are idiots.

Assuming that is so, one has to wonder if the voters be the problem. Of course one cannot run on a campaign based on "voters are loons." Nonetheless, the statistic you present, assuming it's accurate, suggests that voters aren't particularly rigorous in their review of the arguments their elected legislators present for why they should be elected/re-elected, but are very generous in their criticism of the legislators other voters (those outside their own jurisdiction) elect.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Congress has a 9% approval rating and a 90+% re-election rate? You people are idiots.

Assuming that is so, one has to wonder if the voters be the problem. Of course one cannot run on a campaign based on "voters are loons." Nonetheless, the statistic you present, assuming it's accurate, suggests that voters aren't particularly rigorous in their review of the arguments their elected legislators present for why they should be elected/re-elected, but are very generous in their criticism of the legislators other voters (those outside their own jurisdiction) elect.

That is of course the case, evidenced by the fact that every election we hear "vote the bums out "almost unamiously, but almost every sitting member up for reelection is in fact reelected. Of course A LOT of that has to do with a system that favors the incumbents, but not all of it.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Congress has a 9% approval rating and a 90+% re-election rate? You people are idiots.

Assuming that is so, one has to wonder if the voters be the problem. Of course one cannot run on a campaign based on "voters are loons." Nonetheless, the statistic you present, assuming it's accurate, suggests that voters aren't particularly rigorous in their review of the arguments their elected legislators present for why they should be elected/re-elected, but are very generous in their criticism of the legislators other voters (those outside their own jurisdiction) elect.

It's the "my guy" syndrome, where people manage to separate their congressperson from congress. When people realize that the only congressperson worthy of respect is one who advocates for the kind of systemic change that will make the body as a whole function properly, then we might get the kind of government that the country was intended to have. When will that happen? Never, as best I can tell. When people know what Gerrymandering is, I guess, and refuse to support a candidate who doesn't support rational policies for systemic improvement, electoral reform and powerful, national anti-Gerrymandering legislation amongst other rational reforms.

 

[DonaldFG]

Look at the remarks and policy statements the various candidates for POTUS have made. Who among them has gone beyond telling us what is wrong and also has told us specifically how they intend to fix what is wrong. How many of them have bothered to actually make the case that what they think is wrong is in fact causal as oppose to being circumstantially and outcome of some other causal factor?

I'd think by now that the front runners would do more than just tell me things I already know. It doesn't take a genius to identify what's broken. I want a President who can tell me how s/he'll fix those things. I want a candidate who'll tell me what they want to do, what the downsides of that plan are, what they'll do to mitigate the downside risks and realities, as well as tell me the upsides, letting me decide whether I agree with their rationale of the vision, their implementation plan, their proposed risk mitigation tactics, and whether I can live with the good and the bad of the desired outcome.

Now I realize that no candidate is going to present a fully developed plan (vision, implementation, risk mitigation, etc.), so that means that I have to just based on what they provide. The more they share, the better. Quite simply, more ambiguity and vagueness are not better than more detail, some of which I may not agree with. Why? Because at the end of the day, when I know what someone is actually going to do, I can plan accordingly to make sure I don't get screwed in the process of their doing so. Uncertainty is not a good thing when it comes to what one knows (or doesn't) about political candidates.

As you are implying, political campaigns are not about telling details of proposed actions and solutions. Political campaigns are more about policy on future directions. This is general by its nature. Certainly, more details are welcomed by everyone - but hard to get. I look for consistency in statements, and relevance to questions.

The public reaction to policy statements by the candidates comes down to whether we agree with the stated policy, and whether we trust the person making the statement. We can only do that by looking into their past statements and actions; this is a task that takes some work.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Hope and Change.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Look at the remarks and policy statements the various candidates for POTUS have made. Who among them has gone beyond telling us what is wrong and also has told us specifically how they intend to fix what is wrong. How many of them have bothered to actually make the case that what they think is wrong is in fact causal as oppose to being circumstantially and outcome of some other causal factor?

I'd think by now that the front runners would do more than just tell me things I already know. It doesn't take a genius to identify what's broken. I want a President who can tell me how s/he'll fix those things. I want a candidate who'll tell me what they want to do, what the downsides of that plan are, what they'll do to mitigate the downside risks and realities, as well as tell me the upsides, letting me decide whether I agree with their rationale of the vision, their implementation plan, their proposed risk mitigation tactics, and whether I can live with the good and the bad of the desired outcome.

Now I realize that no candidate is going to present a fully developed plan (vision, implementation, risk mitigation, etc.), so that means that I have to just based on what they provide. The more they share, the better. Quite simply, more ambiguity and vagueness are not better than more detail, some of which I may not agree with. Why? Because at the end of the day, when I know what someone is actually going to do, I can plan accordingly to make sure I don't get screwed in the process of their doing so. Uncertainty is not a good thing when it comes to what one knows (or doesn't) about political candidates.

One needs to consider the fact that the individual himself or herself who occupies the Oval Office is but one part of the political equation.

Whom does one think will be the new president’s political advisers, what sort of appointments will he or she make to the Federal courts and Supreme Court, and who will make up his or her cabinet.

Indeed, many of the decisions, appointments, and policies a president ‘makes’ are the consequence of the information and input from advisers, appointees, and administrators; consistent with the governing collective that is the Executive Branch.

With this more accurate and comprehensive understanding of how a given administration works, voters can make an informed decision as whom to vote for; they’re not just voting for a particular candidate, they’re also voting for who will be the next Attorney General, they’re voting for appointments to the Federal courts, and they’re voting for justices to sit on the Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I want a President who can tell me how s/he'll fix those things. I want a candidate who'll tell me what they want to do, what the downsides of that plan are, what they'll do to mitigate the downside risks and realities, as well as tell me the upsides, letting me decide whether I agree with their rationale of the vision, their implementation plan, their proposed risk mitigation tactics, and whether I can live with the good and the bad of the desired outcome."

Unfortunately, the voters have dissuaded candidates from doing exactly this; when candidates give specifics, tell the truth, and are honest with voters, they are attacked by the voters, pilloried, and end up losing the election.

1984 being a classic, infamous example.

The voters have only themselves to blame for political candidates being vague, evasive, and reluctant to give specifics and details as to their policy positions.

 

[320 Years of History]

Look at the remarks and policy statements the various candidates for POTUS have made. Who among them has gone beyond telling us what is wrong and also has told us specifically how they intend to fix what is wrong. How many of them have bothered to actually make the case that what they think is wrong is in fact causal as oppose to being circumstantially and outcome of some other causal factor?

I'd think by now that the front runners would do more than just tell me things I already know. It doesn't take a genius to identify what's broken. I want a President who can tell me how s/he'll fix those things. I want a candidate who'll tell me what they want to do, what the downsides of that plan are, what they'll do to mitigate the downside risks and realities, as well as tell me the upsides, letting me decide whether I agree with their rationale of the vision, their implementation plan, their proposed risk mitigation tactics, and whether I can live with the good and the bad of the desired outcome.

Now I realize that no candidate is going to present a fully developed plan (vision, implementation, risk mitigation, etc.), so that means that I have to just based on what they provide. The more they share, the better. Quite simply, more ambiguity and vagueness are not better than more detail, some of which I may not agree with. Why? Because at the end of the day, when I know what someone is actually going to do, I can plan accordingly to make sure I don't get screwed in the process of their doing so. Uncertainty is not a good thing when it comes to what one knows (or doesn't) about political candidates.

One needs to consider the fact that the individual himself or herself who occupies the Oval Office is but one part of the political equation.

Whom does one think will be the new president’s political advisers, what sort of appointments will he or she make to the Federal courts and Supreme Court, and who will make up his or her cabinet.

Indeed, many of the decisions, appointments, and policies a president ‘makes’ are the consequence of the information and input from advisers, appointees, and administrators; consistent with the governing collective that is the Executive Branch.

With this more accurate and comprehensive understanding of how a given administration works, voters can make an informed decision as whom to vote for; they’re not just voting for a particular candidate, they’re also voting for who will be the next Attorney General, they’re voting for appointments to the Federal courts, and they’re voting for justices to sit on the Supreme Court.

Sure, but I have one phrase for you: tone at the top.

Tone at the top refers to how an organization's leadership creates the tone at the top - an ethical (or unethical) atmosphere in the workplace. Management's tone has a trickle-down effect on employees. If top managers uphold ethics and integrity so will employees. But if upper management appears unconcerned with ethics, employees will be more prone to commit fraud and feel that ethical conduct isn't a priority. In short, employees will follow the examples of their bosses.

Now look at the tone of Trump's campaign to date.

• Will say anything without regard to its veracity.
• Raises as substantive the content found in tabloids.
• Views personal aspersions as acceptable forms of discourse, criticism, and rebuttal, but does not attack the substance of others' actual remarks or actions.
• Tolerance of bigotry.
• Uses fear as a means of motivation.
• Frequently vacillating positions seen as acceptable.
• Makes directly contradictory statements, sometimes in the same time frame.

That tone coming from Trump signals to his subordinates that the same behaviors are okay. That simply is unacceptable from government officials.

 

[Manonthestreet]

What if guy at the top says he'll go it alone and work around the peoples duly elected reps.....does that trickle down

 

[320 Years of History]

As you are implying, political campaigns are not about telling details of proposed actions and solutions. [sic]

No. I'm expressly stating that when a candidate persists in only telling us what they think is wrong with "whatever," we voters nonetheless have no way to know how they plan to fix the problem. I'm saying that telling us what is wrong is hollow because people already know what's wrong; they want to know how a candidate will correct the ills.

When you talk to someone, or they to you, do you want them to tell you what you already know? Sure, doing that establishes that both parties to a discussion have a common understanding of the situation, but for there to be any real progress, at least one of them has to have a proposed action plan for addressing those agreed upon shortcomings. I think that someone who wants to be President, or Senator or Representative or any other type of elected official, needs to have (1) put some thought into what course they will follow and (2) share their plan with voters before voters cast their votes.

Looking at the situation in the U.S., there's generally not much disagreement about what needs to be fixed. That necessarily means that we voters, the other party to the national conversation with Presidential candidates, need to hear plans for fixing "whatever" from the current crop of Presidential hopefuls, and which of them have shared the greatest degree of detail, thereby showing they've put the most thought into the solutions, about how they'd fix things?

Lastly, and perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but I find it thoroughly disrespectful for a conversation leader to ignore and/or fail to fulfill their obligation to provide the substantive content that is their duty to provide in a conversation. For example, when a member of my staff is to make a presentation to me about something, if all they do is tell me what I know already, I will determine that they've wasted my time and theirs, and that is disrespectful, and it shows little integrity. Putting that in a political context, I view the folks running for President as no different than I do any other subordinate. I and the rest of U.S. voters are the decision makers and the candidates the subordinates until we cast our votes.

 

[sakinago]

Look at the remarks and policy statements the various candidates for POTUS have made. Who among them has gone beyond telling us what is wrong and also has told us specifically how they intend to fix what is wrong. How many of them have bothered to actually make the case that what they think is wrong is in fact causal as oppose to being circumstantially and outcome of some other causal factor?

I'd think by now that the front runners would do more than just tell me things I already know. It doesn't take a genius to identify what's broken. I want a President who can tell me how s/he'll fix those things. I want a candidate who'll tell me what they want to do, what the downsides of that plan are, what they'll do to mitigate the downside risks and realities, as well as tell me the upsides, letting me decide whether I agree with their rationale of the vision, their implementation plan, their proposed risk mitigation tactics, and whether I can live with the good and the bad of the desired outcome.

Now I realize that no candidate is going to present a fully developed plan (vision, implementation, risk mitigation, etc.), so that means that I have to just based on what they provide. The more they share, the better. Quite simply, more ambiguity and vagueness are not better than more detail, some of which I may not agree with. Why? Because at the end of the day, when I know what someone is actually going to do, I can plan accordingly to make sure I don't get screwed in the process of their doing so. Uncertainty is not a good thing when it comes to what one knows (or doesn't) about political candidates.

Well, whether you agree with him or not, Trump has certainly pointed out several policies that he thinks are wrong, and suggested broad concepts of how he would fix them.

Cruz has to some extent, Kasich has on a few issues, Bernie of course has mostly focused on "evil wal street" and Hillary, well Hillary has campaigned mostly on her "experience"

Well since trump is the nominee, lets talk about him. Yes he speaks in very broad terms. He gives you a general direction, and often contradicts that direction. So I guess I will list the things that I haven't heard him contradict...to my best knowledge. Now before I give my opinion on these matters I want to make sure that everyone, especially trump supporters agree with what I'm saying. And feel free to add things I missed as long as trump hasn't contradicted that statement.

Economic policy- general direction is China and Mexico are playing unfairly, and beating us. His solution, tariffs on China and Mexico or whoever. Solution for national debt: wealth tax on the wealthy, something around a 14% haircut out of their bank accounts. Also he wants to solve our debt problem like he solved his own, which is essentially through brankruptcy, pay some and then say we can't pay the rest so sorry (yes he did in fact suggest this yesterday). On keeping business in the US: essentially make them stay, not much detail on that, so it could be by force, could be through individual tariffs, denying access to the economy, who knows. Tax plan: hasn't spoken much on this subject outside of wealth tax, and closing up loopholes.Also wants to nationalize banks, and repatriate the 7 or so trillion USD sitting off shore

Healthcare- He is still for universal healthcare. But suggested once in a debate to do away with limiting insurances to their own state. So who knows what he really wants to do

Immigration- This one is easy, build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. And deport whatever illegal alien we find. Ban all Muslims from entering the US

Foriegn- Hes a deal maker and will make deals with everyone, since he deals with Russia and China currently. Isis, he will bomb the bleep out of them, he will take the oil fields they control, and claim them for the US.

If you think I missed more, please add, but again make sure he doesn't contradict himself.