Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
- 265
- Banned
- #21
Trump's message is no different; however, unlike most services and product marketers, one cannot "try before you buy." The man has zero prior public governance experience we can look to.
Well, as Trump said during the debate, there is good experience and bad experience. I have observed that politicians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected.
As far as "try before you buy" goes, we already know what Hillary's election would portend: Massive corruption at the highest levels of government, plus the very real threat of blackmail by foreign adversaries. Trump, on the other hand, has been a very successful chief executive of a huge commercial enterprise.
This contrast begs the question of what qualities makes effective Presidents (e.g., Reagan and Clinton), as opposed to ineffective Presidents (e.g., Carter and Bush Sr.) Isn't it clear that outlining broad policy objectives and giving subordinates the authority to carry them out is better than obsession with policy details and secrecy?
Has the universe accepted this premise as to who was and who was not effective, and who exactly amongst the population were they effective and/or ineffective for? Certainly not all of society, so who matters? Who decides? Carter was clearly the closest to a man of God we’ve had in a nation obsessed with religion. And yet, the “liberal” media has demonized him.
Fenton Lum, did you miss the hilarity of the post to which you replied or were you just being "kind" in not addressing it. The remark to which I'm referring is this: "[P]oliticians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected."
Let's look at that:
Sentences broken down:
Logical thoughts/inferences to draw from them:
- Some politicians make bad decisions.
- Those who do will continue to do so.
- They do so because making bad decisions gets them re-elected.
So what does that mean for those sentences? They express thoroughly inconclusive ideas that lead literally to nothing of merit; thus they are pointless.
- As incumbents of both parties tend to get re-elected rather than ousted, it stands to reason that those politicians' voters -- no matter their party preference -- can't tell a good idea from a bad one.
- Observations about politicians' re-election are no use in assessing what ideas are good or bad.
- Observations about politicians' re-election are no use in assessing what politicians have or promote good or bad ideas.
To me it says the problem is not the politicians, but the american public. It's just easier to blame the politicians for engaging in the behaviors the public rewards.