EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5974
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Aceace
Turkey1305 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 08 2016 11:24 biology]major wrote: Chelsea has the same charisma as her mom: none. Hillary is a testament to being successful at something that you aren't actually suited for, albeit with a lot of hand holding. I would argue that Hillary is well suited for the actual job of being an administrator, just not suited to the skillset that we require for someone to actually get the job. Charisma is like 90% of actually getting elected, but most of the actual work of being a politician isn't anywhere close to that. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13779 Posts
On November 08 2016 11:54 TheYango wrote: I would argue that Hillary is well suited for the actual job of being an administrator, just not suited to the skillset that we require for someone to actually get the job. Charisma is like 90% of actually getting elected, but most of the actual work of being a politician isn't anywhere close to that. Being able to convince people to support your initiatives is pretty much the job of the president. That is something charisma is very useful for. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 08 2016 11:56 LegalLord wrote: Being able to convince people to support your initiatives is pretty much the job of the president. That is something charisma is very useful for. Sure, but that's "charisma" on a much more personal level, which we don't really get to judge as outside observers viewing someone campaign. Someone who looks artificial when giving speeches to thousands of people is not necessarily bad at building connections one-on-one. I'd be surprised if most people don't know at least one person who is quite personable in a small group setting but handles large crowds very poorly. I don't see why such a person would necessarily be an ineffective administrator, other than the fact that they might have a hard time getting elected or maintaining high approval ratings. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 08 2016 11:56 LegalLord wrote: Being able to convince people to support your initiatives is pretty much the job of the president. That is something charisma is very useful for. I would disagree. There are many different ways to do the job of president fine, and some of those don't require much charisma, nor require particularly convincing people to support your initiatives. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13779 Posts
On November 08 2016 11:57 TheYango wrote: Sure, but that's "charisma" on a much more personal level, which we don't really get to judge as outside observers viewing someone campaign. Someone who looks artificial when giving speeches to thousands of people is not necessarily bad at building connections one-on-one. I'd be surprised if most people don't know at least one person who is quite personable in a small group setting but handles large crowds very poorly. I don't see why such a person would necessarily be an ineffective administrator, other than the fact that they might have a hard time getting elected or maintaining high approval ratings. Well the last part there has very real consequences. Poor approval ratings do cost you in pushing whatever initiatives you want. If the public isn't convinced of the validity of your approach, it will be hard to make non-suicidal progress. I imagine Hillary will have a lot of trouble with this and face a country that is willing to give her very little benefit of the doubt, with many looking for the next reason to depose her. Obama has some of that but he has proven that it's much harder to get things to stick to him than it is to get things to stick to Hillary. That is not the making of an administrator who will have much support for anything controversial. Charisma does a lot. She will fare worse without it and with all the baggage she has accumulated. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12298 Posts
Gonna be a slow night ~~ | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
/confession | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
On November 08 2016 12:09 LegalLord wrote: Well the last part there has very real consequences. Poor approval ratings do cost you in pushing whatever initiatives you want. If the public isn't convinced of the validity of your approach, it will be hard to make non-suicidal progress. I imagine Hillary will have a lot of trouble with this and face a country that is willing to give her very little benefit of the doubt, with many looking for the next reason to depose her. Obama has some of that but he has proven that it's much harder to get things to stick to him than it is to get things to stick to Hillary. That is not the making of an administrator who will have much support for anything controversial. Charisma does a lot. She will fare worse without it and with all the baggage she has accumulated. I think it might be a US thing, that charisma counts for a lot (and going by this election, it clearly does). One reason I think its that the media and the 24 hour news cycle requires nice little soundbites from the people in power. There is very little time to digest more complex benchmarks of the performance of a politician. Another is perhaps cultural, and maybe Americans just love to see a good show. Plenty of other countries have no problems with boring politicians. So long as they keep the economy running, set up reasonable social policies, and keep our foreign affairs in order. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13779 Posts
On November 08 2016 12:19 levelping wrote: I think it might be a US thing, that charisma counts for a lot (and going by this election, it clearly does). One reason I think its that the media and the 24 hour news cycle requires nice little soundbites from the people in power. There is very little time to digest more complex benchmarks of the performance of a politician. Another is perhaps cultural, and maybe Americans just love to see a good show. Plenty of other countries have no problems with boring politicians. So long as they keep the economy running, set up reasonable social policies, and keep our foreign affairs in order. It's certainly a primarily US thing. My experience with other countries has been very different in that regard. Nevertheless, it is what it is and it will hurt to lack it. I doubt she will be popular. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On November 08 2016 12:09 LegalLord wrote: Well the last part there has very real consequences. Poor approval ratings do cost you in pushing whatever initiatives you want. If the public isn't convinced of the validity of your approach, it will be hard to make non-suicidal progress. I imagine Hillary will have a lot of trouble with this and face a country that is willing to give her very little benefit of the doubt, with many looking for the next reason to depose her. Obama has some of that but he has proven that it's much harder to get things to stick to him than it is to get things to stick to Hillary. That is not the making of an administrator who will have much support for anything controversial. Charisma does a lot. She will fare worse without it and with all the baggage she has accumulated. As an actual senator she has had enough charisma to be re-elected how many times and help pass how many bills? This is a bit silly guys. She's not as likeable as Obama. The most likeable President in my lifetime. But keep in mind the context of the person who is running. She isn't Trump as we're all glad to know. She has over a decade of political experience. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
In early August, just as protesters from across the country descended on North Dakota to rally against an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, some of the world’s biggest banks signed off on a $2.5 billion loan to help complete the sprawling project. Now, those banks — which include Citigroup and Wells Fargo of the United States, TD Bank of Canada and Mizuho of Japan — have come under fire for their role in bankrolling the pipeline. In an open letter on Monday, 26 environmental groups urged those banks to halt further loan payments to the project, which the Sioux say threatens their sacred lands and water supply. In campaigning to reduce the world’s carbon emissions, environmentalists have increasingly focused on the financiers behind the fossil fuel industry — highlighting their role in financing coal, oil and gas projects. It is an expansion of traditional protest efforts, and it has met with some early success. Environmental groups have also criticized the Dakota Access pipeline as outdated infrastructure with no place in a world racing to stave off the worst effects of climate change. The 1,172-mile pipeline is expected to carry nearly half a million barrels of crude oil daily out of the Bakken fields of North Dakota, according to the company building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners. Late last month, hundreds of police in riot gear used pepper spray and rubber bullets to evict protesters from land owned by Energy Transfer. Over 100 people were arrested in the sweep. President Obama said last week that the Army Corps of Engineers was considering an alternate route for the pipeline. “Banks have a choice to either finance the transition to renewable energy, or to finance pipelines and power plants that will lock us into fossil fuels for the next 40 years,” said Johan Frijns, director of BankTrack, a Netherlands-based advocacy organization that led the campaign. “If we’re serious about fighting climate change, we can’t continue to finance fossil fuel infrastructure of any kind.” The letter from BankTrack and other environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, was addressed to the Equator Principles Association, a consortium of global banks committed to responsible environmental and social practices. Source | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13779 Posts
On November 08 2016 12:28 Probe1 wrote: As an actual senator she has had enough charisma to be re-elected how many times and help pass how many bills? This is a bit silly guys. She's not as likeable as Obama. The most likeable President in my lifetime. But keep in mind the context of the person who is running. She isn't Trump as we're all glad to know. She has over a decade of political experience. New York is far more forgiving of her than the nation as a whole will be. More relevant would be her tenure as First Lady or SoS, although it would probably be worse now since she is less well-regarded now than then. And she was reelected once as Senator, by the way. Most of her tenure was in positions she was not directly elected for, for what that is worth. Also, in terms of likability, Obama has ol' Billy as competition for that title. He has his scandals but he has no lack of charm to compensate. | ||
|
nayumi
Australia6499 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11367 Posts
I'd be surprised if most people don't know at least one person who is quite personable in a small group setting but handles large crowds very poorly. I don't see why such a person would necessarily be an ineffective administrator, other than the fact that they might have a hard time getting elected or maintaining high approval ratings. This is likely a quirk of voting directly... or I guess indirectly ala your electoral Republic (that's to you Wegandi). Whether unconsciously or not, directly voting for a person seems to favour more charismatic people. Whereas in a Westminster democracy, you need to gain the support of the party, not the popular vote... which can get some more charismatic people like the Trudeaus (your mileage may vary), or some fairly robotic people like Stephen Harper, who nonetheless was an able administrator. Certainly, Harper would never have gotten elected down south- likely suffering the same fate of John Kerry or a Dukakais... or I guess a Jeb Bush. Even up here, unless you were familiar with the inner workings of the Reform Party, most people said Stephen Harper, who? when he was chosen leader of the Alliance/ new Conservative Party. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On November 08 2016 12:36 LegalLord wrote: New York is far more forgiving of her than the nation as a whole will be. More relevant would be her tenure as First Lady or SoS, although it would probably be worse now since she is less well-regarded now than then. And she was reelected once as Senator, by the way. Most of her tenure was in positions she was not directly elected for, for what that is worth. As Plansix kindly explained, her time as first lady was not without controversy. As history shows, the entire nation or the state of New York were not inside the legislature where she was charismatic enough to be a productive and re-electable Senator. I don't know what to tell you. Empirically she's shown she has what it takes. We'll just have to disagree and see what happens. It's important to divide me saying "She isn't as charismatic as Michelle Obama" from "She isn't charismatic enough". She has plenty enough to appear superior through three debates with a very hostile political opponent. And I touched on above that she's had enough charisma over the last two decades before it being called into question now. On November 08 2016 12:44 nayumi wrote: Blood bath in Florida you reckon? Yea it's gonna be tight. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13779 Posts
Or maybe Trump will win and all our points will be moot, but on the bright side I will have a chance to mock Hillary's electability for a few years. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On November 08 2016 11:56 LegalLord wrote: Being able to convince people to support your initiatives is pretty much the job of the president. That is something charisma is very useful for. You do not win individual people over with charisma. You win groups over with charisma but individual people are won over with face to face conversations that are deliberate and meticulous and she is good at those. | ||
| ||
