|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 29 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:
Out of Hillary, Bernie, Rubio and Trump the only one you can paint as inexperienced is Trump, the rest are all been in politics for over a decade.
All Trump has is business experience and the government is not a business. They claim a CEO can be president due to the skills acquired running a business. But if you ask of a politician can run a business, apparently none of the skills transfer. As least plumbers and electricians know they can't do each others jobs.
Not sure what you are trying to say, but unlike the public sector, idiots get weeded out rapidly from management in the private one.
|
On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? Show nested quote +
Experience also entails familiarity with executive decision-making at the federal level, including how to delegate or concentrate authority, how to organize advisers and the decision-making process itself,
I mean, to be real - isn't this pretty abstract stuff? I mean you can find tons of non-politicians who can do things like organize people and delegate authority. And sure, knowing the "rules and laws" is useful, but then I keep being told by people that Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie because she would know these rules and laws, and then at the same time they defend her not knowing something as basic as that she shouldn't use a private server for her emails. Again, I think this concept is part of the problem. It seems to me that, currently, the system is incredibly corrupt. Everything is about pandering to the groups that provide the $$, because that's how you get continued support. Why would we want someone who will continue to play into this system? If our politicians aren't doing their jobs, isn't it the job of the citizens to stop electing them more than it is the job of the president to perpetually make bargains with them?
Any system is going to have rules or a certain paradigm under which it operates. To say that it's bad that someone knows how to operate in that system is pretty naive. The rampant corruption is a separate issue (that I doubt would be fixed with Clinton in the White House).
As for experience, there's a reason that basically any job wants comparable experience. It's not just "abstract stuff". I think the executive experience thing puts Rubio and Sanders at a disadvantage, because even though being POTUS is a much bigger scale, Trump's executive leadership experience is obviously relevant.
|
On February 29 2016 03:13 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On February 29 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:
Out of Hillary, Bernie, Rubio and Trump the only one you can paint as inexperienced is Trump, the rest are all been in politics for over a decade.
All Trump has is business experience and the government is not a business. They claim a CEO can be president due to the skills acquired running a business. But if you ask of a politician can run a business, apparently none of the skills transfer. As least plumbers and electricians know they can't do each others jobs. Not sure what you are trying to say, but unlike the public sector, idiots get weeded out rapidly from management in the private one.
nope they don't, management has nothing to do with aptitude or focus on business fundamentals but instead about their own (ir-) replaceability
|
On February 29 2016 03:13 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On February 29 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:
Out of Hillary, Bernie, Rubio and Trump the only one you can paint as inexperienced is Trump, the rest are all been in politics for over a decade.
All Trump has is business experience and the government is not a business. They claim a CEO can be president due to the skills acquired running a business. But if you ask of a politician can run a business, apparently none of the skills transfer. As least plumbers and electricians know they can't do each others jobs. Not sure what you are trying to say, but unlike the public sector, idiots get weeded out rapidly from management in the private one.
Anyone who works in the public sector knows that this is a myth and just as many morons and idiots exists in all industries. It is not the perfect meritocracy people claim it is.
|
On February 29 2016 03:12 ticklishmusic wrote:
Hillary has gotten a lot of things on the progressive agenda done even with the constraints she's been put under. That record is how I define her experience.
This might interest you: What kind of experience does Bernie Sanders have?
"Not only has Sanders gotten a lot more things done than Clinton did in her own short legislative career, he's actually one of the most effective members of Congress, passing bills, both big and small, that have reshaped American policy on key issues like poverty, the environment and health care."
|
The President has to be skilled in a lot of things. I think the two big ones you need to have some experience at doing or at least have some natural aptitude at are (1) people picking and (2) rapid decision making. Most of the President's work is done by other people in the executive branch that the President picks. These people continuously come to the President seeking calls on hard questions. Private sector management experience is relevant here.
|
On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation?
I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies).
On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:Show nested quote +
Experience also entails familiarity with executive decision-making at the federal level, including how to delegate or concentrate authority, how to organize advisers and the decision-making process itself,
I mean, to be real - isn't this pretty abstract stuff? I mean you can find tons of non-politicians who can do things like organize people and delegate authority. And sure, knowing the "rules and laws" is useful, but then I keep being told by people that Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie because she would know these rules and laws, and then at the same time they defend her not knowing something as basic as that she shouldn't use a private server for her emails.
It isn't abstract stuff at all. How you organize the decision-making process has a strong impact on the kind of input you'll receive, what you'll base your decisions on, and ultimately what your decisions are going to look like (and how coherent they will be).
On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:Again, I think this concept is part of the problem. It seems to me that, currently, the system is incredibly corrupt. Everything is about pandering to the groups that provide the $$, because that's how you get continued support. Why would we want someone who will continue to play into this system? If our politicians aren't doing their jobs, isn't it the job of the citizens to stop electing them more than it is the job of the president to perpetually make bargains with them?
I'm not sure how this comment is supposed to be relevant to what I said :p I wasn't talking about pandering to "the groups that provide the $$", I was talking about being able to overcome bureaucratic resistance, which is to say the kind of inertia and "conservatism" which can result from being supported by a bureaucracy made of people who have been occupying the same functions for (much) longer than your mandate. Inexperienced decision-makers can be at a disadvantage in this regard.
|
On February 29 2016 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 29 2016 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 29 2016 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 29 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 29 2016 01:14 Mohdoo wrote:On February 29 2016 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well looks like Sanders raised a few million coming off of SC. Appears mission "end the race" has failed and this will be going to the convention. Let's assume this bizarre fantasy where Sanders isn't dead in the water is true. What do you really see coming out of a convention? lol. A Sanders nomination and win in the general. Why would Sanders be nominated by a brokered convention? Who said anything about brokered? EDIT: Tell me folks see the irony in writing off Sanders while pretending the R's have a race. The republicans have a race because the establishment candidate is the one losing. Making a comeback as an establishment candidate is a lot easier than what Sanders has to make happen at this point. Rubio can still make something happen Tuesday. Things only get worse from here for Sanders unless your prophesized revolution happens some time soon. edit: I think I misunderstood what you meant by convention. What did you mean going to the convention earlier? Meaning Bernie will have enough delegates for the nomination come the convention.
Still no way to get you to bet on that?
|
Trump now quoting Mussolini and saying It's fine since who said it doesn't matter and he likes to be associated with interesting quotes. Can't make this shit up.
Also those kkk endorsements are pouring in! Keep it up!
|
On February 29 2016 04:08 On_Slaught wrote:
Trump now quoting Mussolini and saying It's fine since who said it doesn't matter and he likes to be associated with interesting quotes. Can't make this shit up.
Also those kkk endorsements are pouring in! Keep it up!
My favorite part is that he said he won't denounce the endorsement, "needs more information" and claims he doesn't know anything about the KKK.
|
On February 29 2016 03:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 03:13 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 29 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On February 29 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:
Out of Hillary, Bernie, Rubio and Trump the only one you can paint as inexperienced is Trump, the rest are all been in politics for over a decade.
All Trump has is business experience and the government is not a business. They claim a CEO can be president due to the skills acquired running a business. But if you ask of a politician can run a business, apparently none of the skills transfer. As least plumbers and electricians know they can't do each others jobs. Not sure what you are trying to say, but unlike the public sector, idiots get weeded out rapidly from management in the private one. Anyone who works in the public sector knows that this is a myth and just as many morons and idiots exists in all industries. It is not the perfect meritocracy people claim it is.
Heck, anyone who works in the private sector also knows this isn't true.
|
On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies).
But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent.
Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:
Experience also entails familiarity with executive decision-making at the federal level, including how to delegate or concentrate authority, how to organize advisers and the decision-making process itself,
I mean, to be real - isn't this pretty abstract stuff? I mean you can find tons of non-politicians who can do things like organize people and delegate authority. And sure, knowing the "rules and laws" is useful, but then I keep being told by people that Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie because she would know these rules and laws, and then at the same time they defend her not knowing something as basic as that she shouldn't use a private server for her emails. It isn't abstract stuff at all. How you organize the decision-making process has a strong impact on the kind of input you'll receive, what you'll base your decisions on, and ultimately what your decisions are going to look like (and how coherent they will be).
What I am saying is that I think those skills do not require that you have experience in politics. If we disagree, then ok we disagree 
Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:
and the capacity to deal with, and overcome, bureaucratic resistance.
Again, I think this concept is part of the problem. It seems to me that, currently, the system is incredibly corrupt. Everything is about pandering to the groups that provide the $$, because that's how you get continued support. Why would we want someone who will continue to play into this system? If our politicians aren't doing their jobs, isn't it the job of the citizens to stop electing them more than it is the job of the president to perpetually make bargains with them? I'm not sure how this comment is supposed to be relevant to what I said :p I wasn't talking about pandering to "the groups that provide the $$", I was talking about being able to overcome bureaucratic resistance, which is to say the kind of inertia and "conservatism" which can result from being supported by a bureaucracy made of people who have been occupying the same functions for (much) longer than your mandate. Inexperienced decision-makers can be at a disadvantage in this regard.
Okay, I will admit that this sort of thing is a little more complicated than just pandering to the groups with the $$. But that is a huge source of the obstructionism. Let's just say I think that the obstructionism is rarely motivated by anything noble.
I do concede that regardless of what I think is ideal, there does have to be some capacity to work with those people.
|
On February 29 2016 03:44 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 03:12 ticklishmusic wrote:
Hillary has gotten a lot of things on the progressive agenda done even with the constraints she's been put under. That record is how I define her experience. This might interest you: What kind of experience does Bernie Sanders have?"Not only has Sanders gotten a lot more things done than Clinton did in her own short legislative career, he's actually one of the most effective members of Congress, passing bills, both big and small, that have reshaped American policy on key issues like poverty, the environment and health care."
Sanders has been able to get some great things done while in Congress, but ironically enough what he's been able to squeeze through is incremental change. He's had some improvements to bills, but getting an amendment tacked on means you've added something that not enough people find offensive to torpedo the bill.
If Hillary were solely a 2 term Senator, then perhaps her vs. Bernie would be a more interesting race (though Bernie would have a hard time running as anti establishment). But that's not the case, Hillary is a First Lady, Senator and former SoS as well as a prominent private citizen leading one of the biggest charities in the world.
|
Can someone explain to me why black people hate Sanders? Is it just because he's an old white dude?
|
On February 29 2016 04:40 LemOn wrote:
Can someone explain to me why black people hate Sanders? Is it just because he's an old white dude?
They just don't know him and the Clintons have always been popular with the black community. Why bother listening to a different person when someone you already like is running?
|
On February 29 2016 04:40 LemOn wrote:
Can someone explain to me why black people hate Sanders? Is it just because he's an old white dude?
It's not so much that they hate him but have no real reason to support him. He's a white dude from vermont who most people hadn't heard of before this election. Clinton's a well known name and seems to be linking her campaign a lot with Obama's policies.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent.
This isn't true at all. Lobbyists do most of the work for Congress and competing lobbies are a pretty healthy part of our democracy. Money in politics doesn't have the effect you (or most people) think it does.
Politicians take extreme views because it gets them easy votes with a populace that increasingly doesn't care for nuance (from both sides.) The greatest effect of lobbyists isn't on politicians, it's on regular citizens.
We've got shitty politicians because we're a shitty populace. The NRA isn't successful because it buys politicians. It's successful because it convinces ordinary citizens to support it, who then put pressure on politicians. Trump and co. don't rail on immigrants because of lobbyists and corporations - all the huge farming corps are benefitting and promote liberal immigration laws. Trump and co. are railing on it because it appeals to easy constituents. You're putting the cart before the horse.
|
On February 29 2016 05:54 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent. This isn't true at all. Lobbyists do most of the work for Congress and competing lobbies are a pretty healthy part of our democracy. Money in politics doesn't have the effect you (or most people) think it does. Politicians take extreme views because it gets them easy votes with a populace that increasingly doesn't care for nuance (from both sides.) The greatest effect of lobbyists isn't on politicians, it's on regular citizens. We've got shitty politicians because we're a shitty populace. The NRA isn't successful because it buys politicians. It's successful because it convinces ordinary citizens to support it, who then put pressure on politicians. Trump and co. don't rail on immigrants because of lobbyists and corporations - all the huge farming corps are benefitting and promote liberal immigration laws. Trump and co. are railing on it because it appeals to easy constituents. You're putting the cart before the horse.
I highly doubt that there are grassroots movements promoting AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. yet laws are written that solely benefit entrenched telecom companies. Just one example.
|
On February 29 2016 05:54 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent. This isn't true at all. Lobbyists do most of the work for Congress and competing lobbies are a pretty healthy part of our democracy. Money in politics doesn't have the effect you (or most people) think it does. Politicians take extreme views because it gets them easy votes with a populace that increasingly doesn't care for nuance (from both sides.) The greatest effect of lobbyists isn't on politicians, it's on regular citizens. We've got shitty politicians because we're a shitty populace. The NRA isn't successful because it buys politicians. It's successful because it convinces ordinary citizens to support it, who then put pressure on politicians. You're putting the cart before the horse.
It must be nice to be naive.
I'm pretty sure that politicians voting to allow companies to mine in national parks are not doing so because their voters love it but are doing it because the companies that will mine are the ones 'donating' to their re-election.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
