CDZ What Really Matters in Selecting a President?

[jwoodie]

This year's Presidential election will present such a contrast of personalities and campaign styles that it will be even more difficult than usual to sift through the chatter to determine the core differences between the candidates and their relative order of importance. Here are some that are most important to me:

1. Leadership Ability (i.e., not leading from behind).

2. Strength of Convictions (i.e., not swaying with the latest polls).

3. Honesty (willingness to accept responsibility for one's actions).

4. Flexibility (adaptability to changing facts and conditions).

What are most important to you?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Integrity, love of country and leadership

 

[candycorn]

The ability to appoint center-left jurists. To preserve ROE, hopefully overturn Citizens United. Uphold privacy laws. You can marry within your same sex on Saturday but your boss can fire you for that on Monday. That needs to change.

Secondly, being engaged in what problems are facing the nation, how we can go about addressing them in a pragmatic method.

Thirdly respect for the seriousness of the task, the gravity of the office and the place America holds in the world.

 

[rightwinger]

Truth, Justice and the American Way

 

[Auld Phart]

Truth, Justice and the American Way

You want Superman instead of Wonder Woman?

 

[jwoodie]

The ability to appoint center-left jurists. To preserve ROE, hopefully overturn Citizens United. Uphold privacy laws. You can marry within your same sex on Saturday but your boss can fire you for that on Monday.

So these are the most important issues facing America?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The ability to appoint center-left jurists. To preserve ROE, hopefully overturn Citizens United. Uphold privacy laws. You can marry within your same sex on Saturday but your boss can fire you for that on Monday.

So these are the most important issues facing America?

Damn does candy have pay for view?

 

[candycorn]

The ability to appoint center-left jurists. To preserve ROE, hopefully overturn Citizens United. Uphold privacy laws. You can marry within your same sex on Saturday but your boss can fire you for that on Monday.

So these are the most important issues facing America?

Human rights? You bet

 

[Holos]

Honestly, considering the population and the impact of their behaviors first, it seems that still to this day politicians are continuously and constantly dissented.

Politicians are not meant to control the population or the nation, but it seems that most of the population begs for a centralized, externalized control beyond themselves, as if to make up for parents that were never able to exercise their functions in respect of basic human rights.

Having the uncritical dissent constant and in greater manifestation than any other popular political perspective, the best way I feel to make the distinction between the candidates is not by their actual charismatic skills (which is what primarily consists of a politician's profession), but by the impulsive, unconstrained reaction of the population regardless of who is elected.

I feel, for example, that if Trump gets elected, whatever amount of voters below the required 50% to elect him will simply spend the next four years attempting to prove the national decision was a mistake, beginning at day 1, even before any carefully planned exercising of his function has been proceeded. Likewise, the same would occur to Clinton. That's the sentiment I get when attempting to seriously analyze the candidates including varying groups of citizens.

If I am using computer analysis, each candidate receives one simplified average standardized dissent in their direction. Trump as a representation of economical monopoly (forceful, aggressive, insensitive and inflexible activity) and Clinton as a representation of economical oligarchy (inconsistent, manipulative, sly, fake, divergent activity). None of which is true, although there is a large section of the population that will not care to argue about it and possibly change their opinions, but instead keep their dissenting perspective as an anchor.

Having this situation in mind, the population continues to be what matters to me in selecting a president. In this case I feel extremely compelled to have Clinton take the position, since economical monopoly as singular regulation of policies cannot truly be comprehended as beneficial for an entire population if oligarchy as plural but few regulations of policies also cannot be comprehended as beneficial and still remains out of intellectual and educational reach for citizens who are concerned but restricted in their emotional activities.

At this point, what I am valuing is simplicity, slow delivery and patience in continued commonwealth allegiance and assurance. The part of the population which never had parents for human rights and yet lives in the midst of other families who had those parents, now still shy to approach and relate, will naturally continue to cooperate as every citizen, but will also have to continue purging their pent childhood repressions, requiring special attention and not so capable of paying attention to the entire context of politics. Space and time for their emotional convolutions to move and become intellectual sovereignty has to be recognized by any citizen serious about politics.

The wars are over, but we are still working on the heavily inflicted trauma. When we are all finally healed then we may finally get to practice and participate in politics as governing citizens and not only as official politicians. Until then, great and enduring respect for all citizens and all politicians, and my particular interest in the ability to bridge topics.

 

[jwoodie]

Honestly, considering the population and the impact of their behaviors first, it seems that still to this day politicians are continuously and constantly dissented.

Politicians are not meant to control the population or the nation, but it seems that most of the population begs for a centralized, externalized control beyond themselves, as if to make up for parents that were never able to exercise their functions in respect of basic human rights.

Having the uncritical dissent constant and in greater manifestation than any other popular political perspective, the best way I feel to make the distinction between the candidates is not by their actual charismatic skills (which is what primarily consists of a politician's profession), but by the impulsive, unconstrained reaction of the population regardless of who is elected.

I feel, for example, that if Trump gets elected, whatever amount of voters below the required 50% to elect him will simply spend the next four years attempting to prove the national decision was a mistake, beginning at day 1, even before any carefully planned exercising of his function has been proceeded. Likewise, the same would occur to Clinton. That's the sentiment I get when attempting to seriously analyze the candidates including varying groups of citizens.

If I am using computer analysis, each candidate receives one simplified average standardized dissent in their direction. Trump as a representation of economical monopoly (forceful, aggressive, insensitive and inflexible activity) and Clinton as a representation of economical oligarchy (inconsistent, manipulative, sly, fake, divergent activity). None of which is true, although there is a large section of the population that will not care to argue about it and possibly change their opinions, but instead keep their dissenting perspective as an anchor.

Having this situation in mind, the population continues to be what matters to me in selecting a president. In this case I feel extremely compelled to have Clinton take the position, since economical monopoly as singular regulation of policies cannot truly be comprehended as beneficial for an entire population if oligarchy as plural but few regulations of policies also cannot be comprehended as beneficial and still remains out of intellectual and educational reach for citizens who are concerned but restricted in their emotional activities.

At this point, what I am valuing is simplicity, slow delivery and patience in continued commonwealth allegiance and assurance. The part of the population which never had parents for human rights and yet lives in the midst of other families who had those parents, now still shy to approach and relate, will naturally continue to cooperate as every citizen, but will also have to continue purging their pent childhood repressions, requiring special attention and not so capable of paying attention to the entire context of politics. Space and time for their emotional convolutions to move and become intellectual sovereignty has to be recognized by any citizen serious about politics.

The wars are over, but we are still working on the heavily inflicted trauma. When we are all finally healed then we may finally get to practice and participate in politics as governing citizens and not only as official politicians. Until then, great and enduring respect for all citizens and all politicians, and my particular interest in the ability to bridge topics.

I wonder if a single (6 year) presidential term limit would be an improvement in that opponents would have a date certain to focus their efforts on?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What Really Matters in Selecting a President?"

Potential appointments to the judiciary – the Supreme Court in particular.

Hence the importance of keeping the likes of Trump from becoming president.

 

[Holos]

Honestly, considering the population and the impact of their behaviors first, it seems that still to this day politicians are continuously and constantly dissented.

Politicians are not meant to control the population or the nation, but it seems that most of the population begs for a centralized, externalized control beyond themselves, as if to make up for parents that were never able to exercise their functions in respect of basic human rights.

Having the uncritical dissent constant and in greater manifestation than any other popular political perspective, the best way I feel to make the distinction between the candidates is not by their actual charismatic skills (which is what primarily consists of a politician's profession), but by the impulsive, unconstrained reaction of the population regardless of who is elected.

I feel, for example, that if Trump gets elected, whatever amount of voters below the required 50% to elect him will simply spend the next four years attempting to prove the national decision was a mistake, beginning at day 1, even before any carefully planned exercising of his function has been proceeded. Likewise, the same would occur to Clinton. That's the sentiment I get when attempting to seriously analyze the candidates including varying groups of citizens.

If I am using computer analysis, each candidate receives one simplified average standardized dissent in their direction. Trump as a representation of economical monopoly (forceful, aggressive, insensitive and inflexible activity) and Clinton as a representation of economical oligarchy (inconsistent, manipulative, sly, fake, divergent activity). None of which is true, although there is a large section of the population that will not care to argue about it and possibly change their opinions, but instead keep their dissenting perspective as an anchor.

Having this situation in mind, the population continues to be what matters to me in selecting a president. In this case I feel extremely compelled to have Clinton take the position, since economical monopoly as singular regulation of policies cannot truly be comprehended as beneficial for an entire population if oligarchy as plural but few regulations of policies also cannot be comprehended as beneficial and still remains out of intellectual and educational reach for citizens who are concerned but restricted in their emotional activities.

At this point, what I am valuing is simplicity, slow delivery and patience in continued commonwealth allegiance and assurance. The part of the population which never had parents for human rights and yet lives in the midst of other families who had those parents, now still shy to approach and relate, will naturally continue to cooperate as every citizen, but will also have to continue purging their pent childhood repressions, requiring special attention and not so capable of paying attention to the entire context of politics. Space and time for their emotional convolutions to move and become intellectual sovereignty has to be recognized by any citizen serious about politics.

The wars are over, but we are still working on the heavily inflicted trauma. When we are all finally healed then we may finally get to practice and participate in politics as governing citizens and not only as official politicians. Until then, great and enduring respect for all citizens and all politicians, and my particular interest in the ability to bridge topics.

I wonder if a single (6 year) presidential term limit would be an improvement in that opponents would have a date certain to focus their efforts on?

Opponents do not have any lack of focus or lack of efforts, which is why their campaigns are marked by appointed and welcoming rallies.
Dates are already functionally set.

What is the improvement you are looking for exactly?

 

[FA_Q2]

This cycle - the SCOTUS is the most important issue for the president by a large margin.

Unfortunately, the leading candidates are both prime for selecting shit judges.

 

[Kristian]

Justice, Buisness and Military cut on right.

 

[norwegen]

This year's Presidential election will present such a contrast of personalities and campaign styles that it will be even more difficult than usual to sift through the chatter to determine the core differences between the candidates and their relative order of importance. Here are some that are most important to me:

1. Leadership Ability (i.e., not leading from behind).

2. Strength of Convictions (i.e., not swaying with the latest polls).

3. Honesty (willingness to accept responsibility for one's actions).

4. Flexibility (adaptability to changing facts and conditions).

What are most important to you?

Genitalia

Mudslinging

Looks

Length of criminal record

 

[oldsoul]

This year's Presidential election will present such a contrast of personalities and campaign styles that it will be even more difficult than usual to sift through the chatter to determine the core differences between the candidates and their relative order of importance. Here are some that are most important to me:

1. Leadership Ability (i.e., not leading from behind).

2. Strength of Convictions (i.e., not swaying with the latest polls).

3. Honesty (willingness to accept responsibility for one's actions).

4. Flexibility (adaptability to changing facts and conditions).

What are most important to you?

One through four. It's all important, equally so.

 

[jwoodie]

Honestly, considering the population and the impact of their behaviors first, it seems that still to this day politicians are continuously and constantly dissented.

Politicians are not meant to control the population or the nation, but it seems that most of the population begs for a centralized, externalized control beyond themselves, as if to make up for parents that were never able to exercise their functions in respect of basic human rights.

Having the uncritical dissent constant and in greater manifestation than any other popular political perspective, the best way I feel to make the distinction between the candidates is not by their actual charismatic skills (which is what primarily consists of a politician's profession), but by the impulsive, unconstrained reaction of the population regardless of who is elected.

I feel, for example, that if Trump gets elected, whatever amount of voters below the required 50% to elect him will simply spend the next four years attempting to prove the national decision was a mistake, beginning at day 1, even before any carefully planned exercising of his function has been proceeded. Likewise, the same would occur to Clinton. That's the sentiment I get when attempting to seriously analyze the candidates including varying groups of citizens.

If I am using computer analysis, each candidate receives one simplified average standardized dissent in their direction. Trump as a representation of economical monopoly (forceful, aggressive, insensitive and inflexible activity) and Clinton as a representation of economical oligarchy (inconsistent, manipulative, sly, fake, divergent activity). None of which is true, although there is a large section of the population that will not care to argue about it and possibly change their opinions, but instead keep their dissenting perspective as an anchor.

Having this situation in mind, the population continues to be what matters to me in selecting a president. In this case I feel extremely compelled to have Clinton take the position, since economical monopoly as singular regulation of policies cannot truly be comprehended as beneficial for an entire population if oligarchy as plural but few regulations of policies also cannot be comprehended as beneficial and still remains out of intellectual and educational reach for citizens who are concerned but restricted in their emotional activities.

At this point, what I am valuing is simplicity, slow delivery and patience in continued commonwealth allegiance and assurance. The part of the population which never had parents for human rights and yet lives in the midst of other families who had those parents, now still shy to approach and relate, will naturally continue to cooperate as every citizen, but will also have to continue purging their pent childhood repressions, requiring special attention and not so capable of paying attention to the entire context of politics. Space and time for their emotional convolutions to move and become intellectual sovereignty has to be recognized by any citizen serious about politics.

The wars are over, but we are still working on the heavily inflicted trauma. When we are all finally healed then we may finally get to practice and participate in politics as governing citizens and not only as official politicians. Until then, great and enduring respect for all citizens and all politicians, and my particular interest in the ability to bridge topics.

I wonder if a single (6 year) presidential term limit would be an improvement in that opponents would have a date certain to focus their efforts on?

Opponents do not have any lack of focus or lack of efforts, which is why their campaigns are marked by appointed and welcoming rallies.
Dates are already functionally set.

What is the improvement you are looking for exactly?

A single presidential term limit would reduce some of the rancor seen at reelection time when the incumbent is vilified in the hope that he will not serve a second term. For example, the partisan opposition to President Obama has already peaked, since he is not now seeking another term in office. Transferring this angst to other candidates may allow the incumbent to govern more effectively (for better or worse).

 

[Holos]

Honestly, considering the population and the impact of their behaviors first, it seems that still to this day politicians are continuously and constantly dissented.

Politicians are not meant to control the population or the nation, but it seems that most of the population begs for a centralized, externalized control beyond themselves, as if to make up for parents that were never able to exercise their functions in respect of basic human rights.

Having the uncritical dissent constant and in greater manifestation than any other popular political perspective, the best way I feel to make the distinction between the candidates is not by their actual charismatic skills (which is what primarily consists of a politician's profession), but by the impulsive, unconstrained reaction of the population regardless of who is elected.

I feel, for example, that if Trump gets elected, whatever amount of voters below the required 50% to elect him will simply spend the next four years attempting to prove the national decision was a mistake, beginning at day 1, even before any carefully planned exercising of his function has been proceeded. Likewise, the same would occur to Clinton. That's the sentiment I get when attempting to seriously analyze the candidates including varying groups of citizens.

If I am using computer analysis, each candidate receives one simplified average standardized dissent in their direction. Trump as a representation of economical monopoly (forceful, aggressive, insensitive and inflexible activity) and Clinton as a representation of economical oligarchy (inconsistent, manipulative, sly, fake, divergent activity). None of which is true, although there is a large section of the population that will not care to argue about it and possibly change their opinions, but instead keep their dissenting perspective as an anchor.

Having this situation in mind, the population continues to be what matters to me in selecting a president. In this case I feel extremely compelled to have Clinton take the position, since economical monopoly as singular regulation of policies cannot truly be comprehended as beneficial for an entire population if oligarchy as plural but few regulations of policies also cannot be comprehended as beneficial and still remains out of intellectual and educational reach for citizens who are concerned but restricted in their emotional activities.

At this point, what I am valuing is simplicity, slow delivery and patience in continued commonwealth allegiance and assurance. The part of the population which never had parents for human rights and yet lives in the midst of other families who had those parents, now still shy to approach and relate, will naturally continue to cooperate as every citizen, but will also have to continue purging their pent childhood repressions, requiring special attention and not so capable of paying attention to the entire context of politics. Space and time for their emotional convolutions to move and become intellectual sovereignty has to be recognized by any citizen serious about politics.

The wars are over, but we are still working on the heavily inflicted trauma. When we are all finally healed then we may finally get to practice and participate in politics as governing citizens and not only as official politicians. Until then, great and enduring respect for all citizens and all politicians, and my particular interest in the ability to bridge topics.

I wonder if a single (6 year) presidential term limit would be an improvement in that opponents would have a date certain to focus their efforts on?

Opponents do not have any lack of focus or lack of efforts, which is why their campaigns are marked by appointed and welcoming rallies.
Dates are already functionally set.

What is the improvement you are looking for exactly?

A single presidential term limit would reduce some of the rancor seen at reelection time when the incumbent is vilified in the hope that he will not serve a second term. For example, the partisan opposition to President Obama has already peaked, since he is not now seeking another term in office. Transferring this angst to other candidates may allow the incumbent to govern more effectively (for better or worse).

So what is really politics to you?
Emotional roller coasters?
Do you believe citizens who do not take their profession as official politics are only political agents by being cheerleaders, fans or audience?
What about discussion on legislation, instead of behavior? Is that agreeable to people that may have the tendency for two to three careers, instead of only official politics which requires the whole of their times?
Do you think a mother of three, single and ambitious, has no influence on politics other than emotionally sparking her neighbors?

What example are you actually offering with your statement?
Transferring angst to other candidates so one or the other govern more effectively? Do you think that angst will ever become something actually useful that way? Effectiveness having no discrimination between better or worse? If the idea is just to keep transferring it over to other candidates it will just make a full circle and probably at that point will have escalated to damage everyone's health.
It doesn't seem to me you are taking politics seriously.

 

[Holos]

This year's Presidential election will present such a contrast of personalities and campaign styles that it will be even more difficult than usual to sift through the chatter to determine the core differences between the candidates and their relative order of importance. Here are some that are most important to me:

1. Leadership Ability (i.e., not leading from behind).

2. Strength of Convictions (i.e., not swaying with the latest polls).

3. Honesty (willingness to accept responsibility for one's actions).

4. Flexibility (adaptability to changing facts and conditions).

What are most important to you?

Genitalia

Mudslinging

Looks

Length of criminal record

May I ask the reason for which you are making jokes in the clean debate zone?

This one citizen here is attempting to comprehend and further educate other people that may be already too overloaded with their burdens and duties to be equally diligent in knowing how to exercise their political functions as contributing citizens to their cities and towns in the benefit of all residents.

 

[yiostheoy]

This year's Presidential election will present such a contrast of personalities and campaign styles that it will be even more difficult than usual to sift through the chatter to determine the core differences between the candidates and their relative order of importance. Here are some that are most important to me:

1. Leadership Ability (i.e., not leading from behind).

2. Strength of Convictions (i.e., not swaying with the latest polls).

3. Honesty (willingness to accept responsibility for one's actions).

4. Flexibility (adaptability to changing facts and conditions).

What are most important to you?

The last US President whom I agreed completely with was Ike -- and it turns out even he was dead wrong about the Viet Nam buildup. He blew that one.

Ergo ever since then the choice of a POTUS has always been THE LESSER OF TWO WEEVILS.

Leadership ability -- Hillary has very little and The Donald has NONE.

Strength of convictions -- Hillary has very little and The Donald has NONE.

Honesty -- Hillary has very little and The Donald has NONE.

Flexibility -- both of them are bone headed stubborn.

BUT when you compare Hillary with The Donald she looks like an angel in white compared to this frat boy bozo.

Easy choice then.