CDZ What do We Want in a President?

[jwoodie]

As he openly stated, President Obama has fundamentally changed America's role on the world's stage. No longer are we the sole superpower who can unilaterally impose our foreign policy on other nations with little regard for the consequences. Ironically, this makes foreign relations more important than ever in selecting our next President. Domestic politics used to be decided in insularity from the rest of the world, but the internationalization of our economy now makes this approach obsolete.

What do we want in our next President? Someone who makes nice speeches while other countries take advantage of us? Don't we need someone who will be respected as a hard bargainer who puts America's interests first? Which candidates are capable of this?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What do We Want in a President?


The polar opposite of Obungles

 

[alanbmx123]

A leader


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[320 Years of History]

As he openly stated, President Obama has fundamentally changed America's role on the world's stage. No longer are we the sole superpower who can unilaterally impose our foreign policy on other nations with little regard for the consequences. Ironically, this makes foreign relations more important than ever in selecting our next President. Domestic politics used to be decided in insularity from the rest of the world, but the internationalization of our economy now makes this approach obsolete.

What do we want in our next President? Someone who makes nice speeches while other countries take advantage of us? Don't we need someone who will be respected as a hard bargainer who puts America's interests first? Which candidates are capable of this?

Red:
I'm not going to answer this because you don't like fully developed and comprehensive answers to questions and my answer to that question takes more than three short paragraphs.

I'll say only that what I want in every President (or leader) is integrity and forthrightness.

Blue:
What a ridiculous question...Nobody on a ship sailing in dangerous waters cares to hear the captain talking about the entertainment schedule; the passengers want to know that s/he is making sure the ship doesn't run aground or hit an iceberg or whatever.

Green:

• We do need a President whom other nations and leaders respect.
• We do need a good bargainer more so than we need a poor bargainer. The key in this is that good bargainers that a bargain calls for yielding some of what one would ideally have just as the other party to the deal will also yield some of what would ideally have. All bargaining contenders arrive "at the table" with a set of explicit demands; good bargainers know from square one that they are unlikely, in a fairly played "game," to have all their demands met.
  
  Strategically, it's not bad or stupid to have some demands one knows are unreasonable; the stupid thing is to have unreasonable demands, not realize they are unreasonable, and thus be unwilling to yield on them. There are multiple ways to discover whether a demand is unreasonable. Some of those means can have effect before arriving at the negotiation, others only during the negotiation. Either way, the stupidity of insisting on an unreasonable demand remains, as does the outcome of doing so: no agreement will be reached.

Purple:

• All the candidates for President are capable of being good bargainers. The question is which of them is willing to be a good bargainer.

 

[FA_Q2]

For once honesty would be nice...

 

[Ellison]

The 'we' in the question is vague. People support widely different policies and thus will want widely different things. I wish people voted more on their policy preferences than personal preferences, but I can only control who I support. What I want in a president is someone that closely matches my policy preferences. That will always trump any personal element about them. It is all well and good to have a lovely person for president, but it does me no good if I disagree with all of their policies.

 

[Jeddahite]

We need someone who is slo-o-ow to act. Not a hotheaded carpet bomber or a bombastic, autocratic wall-builder. We've been thrown into too many wars without thought of the outcome or the losses we would suffer. We need a diplomat, not a dictator. We need someone who can bring peace and cohesion to our nation, not a divider.We need someone who recognizes that we are ALL Americans, no matter our religion or gender or ethnic heritage or sexual preference. We need someone who can see the big picture and not simply focus on a personal agenda. We need someone who is above the pettiness and attacks and insults of the election process.

 

[320 Years of History]

The 'we' in the question is vague. People support widely different policies and thus will want widely different things. I wish people voted more on their policy preferences than personal preferences, but I can only control who I support. What I want in a president is someone that closely matches my policy preferences. That will always trump any personal element about them. It is all well and good to have a lovely person for president, but it does me no good if I disagree with all of their policies.

I wish most voters voted based on logos rather than pathos.

 

[Kareval]

I want...personally a leader who will adhere to the Constitution, and not ignore and trample on it as Obama has. I want a President who can relate to regular people...not some elitist who thinks they are above the law.. I don't know if there's any such person out there, but THAT is what we need.

 

[jwoodie]

We need someone who is slo-o-ow to act. Not a hotheaded carpet bomber or a bombastic, autocratic wall-builder. We've been thrown into too many wars without thought of the outcome or the losses we would suffer. We need a diplomat, not a dictator. We need someone who can bring peace and cohesion to our nation, not a divider.We need someone who recognizes that we are ALL Americans, no matter our religion or gender or ethnic heritage or sexual preference. We need someone who can see the big picture and not simply focus on a personal agenda. We need someone who is above the pettiness and attacks and insults of the election process.

Do you have someone in mind who fits your criteria?

 

[jwoodie]

The 'we' in the question is vague. People support widely different policies and thus will want widely different things. I wish people voted more on their policy preferences than personal preferences, but I can only control who I support. What I want in a president is someone that closely matches my policy preferences. That will always trump any personal element about them. It is all well and good to have a lovely person for president, but it does me no good if I disagree with all of their policies.

Isn't your reliance on "policy" at odds with the Constitutional authority and duties of the President? Other than submitting a proposed budget to Congress each year, the President is supposed to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Policy "debates" during the Presidential election cycle are little more than free air time for candidates to throw sound bites at unsophisticated voters. As such, their principal value is as a gauge of the extent to which a candidate is willing to pander to his/her audience.

 

[Jeddahite]

We need someone who is slo-o-ow to act. Not a hotheaded carpet bomber or a bombastic, autocratic wall-builder. We've been thrown into too many wars without thought of the outcome or the losses we would suffer. We need a diplomat, not a dictator. We need someone who can bring peace and cohesion to our nation, not a divider.We need someone who recognizes that we are ALL Americans, no matter our religion or gender or ethnic heritage or sexual preference. We need someone who can see the big picture and not simply focus on a personal agenda. We need someone who is above the pettiness and attacks and insults of the election process.

Do you have someone in mind who fits your criteria?

Either of the Democrat front runners.

 

[oldsoul]

We need someone who is slo-o-ow to act. Not a hotheaded carpet bomber or a bombastic, autocratic wall-builder. We've been thrown into too many wars without thought of the outcome or the losses we would suffer. We need a diplomat, not a dictator. We need someone who can bring peace and cohesion to our nation, not a divider.We need someone who recognizes that we are ALL Americans, no matter our religion or gender or ethnic heritage or sexual preference. We need someone who can see the big picture and not simply focus on a personal agenda. We need someone who is above the pettiness and attacks and insults of the election process.

Do you have someone in mind who fits your criteria?

Either of the Democrat front runners.

So, we need someone who is slow to act? Kinda like in the Bengazi attack? Guess that is where your Hillary support comes from. What causes you to think that Sanders fits any of your criterion?

 

[Votto]

For once honesty would be nice...

That's not an option.

 

[I amso IR]

We need someone who is slo-o-ow to act. Not a hotheaded carpet bomber or a bombastic, autocratic wall-builder. We've been thrown into too many wars without thought of the outcome or the losses we would suffer. We need a diplomat, not a dictator. We need someone who can bring peace and cohesion to our nation, not a divider.We need someone who recognizes that we are ALL Americans, no matter our religion or gender or ethnic heritage or sexual preference. We need someone who can see the big picture and not simply focus on a personal agenda. We need someone who is above the pettiness and attacks and insults of the election process.

Do you have someone in mind who fits your criteria?

Either of the Democrat front runners.

So much for a person based in the Constitution or a person who relies on integrity. Let me guess, you are a liberal, progressive, socialist, professor working at university level and major in journalism. I hear Missouri calling you.

 

[oldsoul]

Here is what I want.
A person who:

1. Is grounded in the Constitution.
2. Has a PROVEN record of abiding by/defending the Constitution.
3. I beleive will take the Presidential Oath seriously.
4. Is able and willing to unite our country.
5. Understands that our country was founded as a union of states, and will act accordingly.
6. Will be tough when needed, and soft when warranted when dealing with foreign issues.
7. As Harry S. Truman had on his desk, "Walk softly, and carry a BIG stick". (emphasis mine)
8. Is willing to make the hard choices, no matter what the consequences (political, personal, ect.).
9. Knows when, and how to let their voice be heard, and when to shut-up, sit-down, and listen.
10. Is a proud American, and will fight for her rights, and interests in the world.

While not the perfect canidate, Ted Cruz seems to fit the bill better than anyone else. It's not really even close. A Cruz, Rubio ticket... wow, how could you go wrong with that?

 

[Ellison]

The 'we' in the question is vague. People support widely different policies and thus will want widely different things. I wish people voted more on their policy preferences than personal preferences, but I can only control who I support. What I want in a president is someone that closely matches my policy preferences. That will always trump any personal element about them. It is all well and good to have a lovely person for president, but it does me no good if I disagree with all of their policies.

Isn't your reliance on "policy" at odds with the Constitutional authority and duties of the President? Other than submitting a proposed budget to Congress each year, the President is supposed to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Policy "debates" during the Presidential election cycle are little more than free air time for candidates to throw sound bites at unsophisticated voters. As such, their principal value is as a gauge of the extent to which a candidate is willing to pander to his/her audience.

Are you saying that when you look at history the president does not have much of an impact on policy? The White House has quite a strong influence on policy. That will not change regardless if someone likes it or not. The 'first hundred days' tradition did not appear out of thin air. I can understand why you think presidents shouldn't be important to policy but, in reality, they do.

 

[oldsoul]

The 'we' in the question is vague. People support widely different policies and thus will want widely different things. I wish people voted more on their policy preferences than personal preferences, but I can only control who I support. What I want in a president is someone that closely matches my policy preferences. That will always trump any personal element about them. It is all well and good to have a lovely person for president, but it does me no good if I disagree with all of their policies.

Isn't your reliance on "policy" at odds with the Constitutional authority and duties of the President? Other than submitting a proposed budget to Congress each year, the President is supposed to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Policy "debates" during the Presidential election cycle are little more than free air time for candidates to throw sound bites at unsophisticated voters. As such, their principal value is as a gauge of the extent to which a candidate is willing to pander to his/her audience.

Are you saying that when you look at history the president does not have much of an impact on policy? The White House has quite a strong influence on policy. That will not change regardless if someone likes it or not. The 'first hundred days' tradition did not appear out of thin air. I can understand why you think presidents shouldn't be important to policy but, in reality, they do.

Important in defining policy within the confines of the law, which they do not define, yes. As for the 'first hundred days' tradition, it's no more than an attempt to jump start the term of that President; as well as set the tone, and type of their agenda. It really is just that simple. It has been, and will continue to be, rare that a President will exact lasting, substantial change during the first one hundred days in office.

 

[Ellison]

The 'we' in the question is vague. People support widely different policies and thus will want widely different things. I wish people voted more on their policy preferences than personal preferences, but I can only control who I support. What I want in a president is someone that closely matches my policy preferences. That will always trump any personal element about them. It is all well and good to have a lovely person for president, but it does me no good if I disagree with all of their policies.

Isn't your reliance on "policy" at odds with the Constitutional authority and duties of the President? Other than submitting a proposed budget to Congress each year, the President is supposed to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Policy "debates" during the Presidential election cycle are little more than free air time for candidates to throw sound bites at unsophisticated voters. As such, their principal value is as a gauge of the extent to which a candidate is willing to pander to his/her audience.

Are you saying that when you look at history the president does not have much of an impact on policy? The White House has quite a strong influence on policy. That will not change regardless if someone likes it or not. The 'first hundred days' tradition did not appear out of thin air. I can understand why you think presidents shouldn't be important to policy but, in reality, they do.

Important in defining policy within the confines of the law, which they do not define, yes. As for the 'first hundred days' tradition, it's no more than an attempt to jump start the term of that President; as well as set the tone, and type of their agenda. It really is just that simple. It has been, and will continue to be, rare that a President will exact lasting, substantial change during the first one hundred days in office.

Yes, many fail the hundred days. But you just mentioned the keyword: agenda. The president's agenda is very important for the policy changes that will happen in the term. The amount of influence a president maintains over his own party within Congress is important to the policymaking process. When presidential candidates state their policy preferences (or, rather, list them on their website and vaguely allude to them on the campaign trail), it is them trying to convince those paying attention as to what the agenda will be.

 

[oldsoul]

The 'we' in the question is vague. People support widely different policies and thus will want widely different things. I wish people voted more on their policy preferences than personal preferences, but I can only control who I support. What I want in a president is someone that closely matches my policy preferences. That will always trump any personal element about them. It is all well and good to have a lovely person for president, but it does me no good if I disagree with all of their policies.

Isn't your reliance on "policy" at odds with the Constitutional authority and duties of the President? Other than submitting a proposed budget to Congress each year, the President is supposed to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Policy "debates" during the Presidential election cycle are little more than free air time for candidates to throw sound bites at unsophisticated voters. As such, their principal value is as a gauge of the extent to which a candidate is willing to pander to his/her audience.

Are you saying that when you look at history the president does not have much of an impact on policy? The White House has quite a strong influence on policy. That will not change regardless if someone likes it or not. The 'first hundred days' tradition did not appear out of thin air. I can understand why you think presidents shouldn't be important to policy but, in reality, they do.

Important in defining policy within the confines of the law, which they do not define, yes. As for the 'first hundred days' tradition, it's no more than an attempt to jump start the term of that President; as well as set the tone, and type of their agenda. It really is just that simple. It has been, and will continue to be, rare that a President will exact lasting, substantial change during the first one hundred days in office.

Yes, many fail the hundred days. But you just mentioned the keyword: agenda. The president's agenda is very important for the policy changes that will happen in the term. The amount of influence a president maintains over his own party within Congress is important to the policymaking process. When presidential candidates state their policy preferences (or, rather, list them on their website and vaguely allude to them on the campaign trail), it is them trying to convince those paying attention as to what the agenda will be.

I fail to understand what any of this has to do with JWoodie's post.