No strategy given, no leadership shown

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
So what would good leadership be? Be very specific with what actions he should take, no broad platitudes.

I would have bet my testes you'd come back with that. I tell you what, reverse roles here....you tell me how he has show effective leadership is and be specific. Was his latest statement a wise one....was it?
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
I would have bet my testes you'd come back with that. I tell you what, reverse roles here....you tell me what good leadership is.

Uhmm, you're the one making the claim. You appear to think he isn't showing good leadership. Clearly you must have something in mind,, otherwise you're just ranting incoherently. So, what is it?

By the way, dominionseraph called you out pretty completely there.
 

Tombstone1881

Senior member
Aug 8, 2014
486
161
116
He certainly hasn't thought about his responses or actions when encountered with challenging situations as president. How did I know Bush would be brought into this.

Here's a picture of Van Buren with a wizard hat; it's as relevant as a picture of Bush.
BurenWizard.jpg

Hey, you're right. Kind of. He was really more like Obama is.

Soon after taking office, President Martin Van Buren faced a diplomatic crisis with Great Britain. It grew out of tensions between Americans, Canadians, and British soldiers along the borders between New York and Canada and Maine and Canada.

Problems began when a small separatist movement in Canada sought to gain independence from Britain in late 1837. After an unsuccessful uprising, these dissidents retreated to the United States, recruited a number of American citizens to their cause, and took refuge on an island in the Niagara River, which divides the United States—and specifically New York—from Canada. Some Americans began selling guns and supplies to the Canadian separatists. In response, the British ordered loyalist Canadian forces to attack the ship being used to supply the rebels. The loyalist Canadians boarded the Caroline, set it ablaze, and pushed it over Niagara Falls, killing one American. Considerable sentiment arose within the United States to declare war on England, and a British ship was burned in revenge.

Van Buren looked to avoid a major diplomatic row with Great Britain and he rejected the possibility of an aggressive response. Instead, he sent General Winfield Scott to the region to impress upon American citizens the need for a peaceful resolution to the crisis, and to make it clear that the U.S. government would not countenance adventuresome Americans attacking the British. Also, in early January 1838, Van Buren proclaimed U.S. neutrality with regard to the Canadian independence issue, a declaration which Congress endorsed by passing a neutrality law designed to discourage the participation of American citizens in foreign conflicts. Each of these actions had the effect of calming the situation.

A new crisis surfaced in late 1838,however, along the border between Maine and Canada, where Americans began settling on lands claimed by both the United States and Great Britain. When British troops forcibly removed some of the settlers and imprisoned others, tensions between British officials and the governor of Maine, John Fairfield, rose to a fever pitch. Fairfield even called on Van Buren to send troops to the area.

To settle the Maine crisis, Van Buren met with the British minister to the United States. They agreed to resolve the border issue diplomatically. Van Buren also sent General Scott to Maine with orders to rein in Governor Fairfield and others who were exacerbating the tensions. Again, Van Buren's tactics worked. The diplomatic negotiations begun by Van Buren resulted, in 1842, with the signing of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty between Great Britain and the United States that resolved these border issues.
Van Buren's patient diplomacy, which defused tensions between the United States and Great Britain, kept America out of war. But his pursuit of negotiations and accommodation in the face of the loss of American property and lives only angered those in Maine and New York who wanted him to take a tougher stance. The criticism Van Buren took in both cases was quite considerable, and added to the substantial indictment his opponents filed against his presidency.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
Hey, you're right. Kind of. He was really more like Obama is.

Soon after taking office, President Martin Van Buren faced a diplomatic crisis with Great Britain. It grew out of tensions between Americans, Canadians, and British soldiers along the borders between New York and Canada and Maine and Canada.

Problems began when a small separatist movement in Canada sought to gain independence from Britain in late 1837. After an unsuccessful uprising, these dissidents retreated to the United States, recruited a number of American citizens to their cause, and took refuge on an island in the Niagara River, which divides the United States—and specifically New York—from Canada. Some Americans began selling guns and supplies to the Canadian separatists. In response, the British ordered loyalist Canadian forces to attack the ship being used to supply the rebels. The loyalist Canadians boarded the Caroline, set it ablaze, and pushed it over Niagara Falls, killing one American. Considerable sentiment arose within the United States to declare war on England, and a British ship was burned in revenge.

Van Buren looked to avoid a major diplomatic row with Great Britain and he rejected the possibility of an aggressive response. Instead, he sent General Winfield Scott to the region to impress upon American citizens the need for a peaceful resolution to the crisis, and to make it clear that the U.S. government would not countenance adventuresome Americans attacking the British. Also, in early January 1838, Van Buren proclaimed U.S. neutrality with regard to the Canadian independence issue, a declaration which Congress endorsed by passing a neutrality law designed to discourage the participation of American citizens in foreign conflicts. Each of these actions had the effect of calming the situation.

A new crisis surfaced in late 1838,however, along the border between Maine and Canada, where Americans began settling on lands claimed by both the United States and Great Britain. When British troops forcibly removed some of the settlers and imprisoned others, tensions between British officials and the governor of Maine, John Fairfield, rose to a fever pitch. Fairfield even called on Van Buren to send troops to the area.

To settle the Maine crisis, Van Buren met with the British minister to the United States. They agreed to resolve the border issue diplomatically. Van Buren also sent General Scott to Maine with orders to rein in Governor Fairfield and others who were exacerbating the tensions. Again, Van Buren's tactics worked. The diplomatic negotiations begun by Van Buren resulted, in 1842, with the signing of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty between Great Britain and the United States that resolved these border issues.
Van Buren's patient diplomacy, which defused tensions between the United States and Great Britain, kept America out of war. But his pursuit of negotiations and accommodation in the face of the loss of American property and lives only angered those in Maine and New York who wanted him to take a tougher stance. The criticism Van Buren took in both cases was quite considerable, and added to the substantial indictment his opponents filed against his presidency.


Well you're kind of right as well although the comparison of that situation to the current is not very similar or potentially dangerous. I chose Van Buren for two reasons. He's one of those ho hum presidents in history and I dig his facial hair.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
I'll take a "we don't know yet but are thinking about it" over a "let's act right now so we can look decisive in front of the electorate" any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
I'll take a "we don't know yet but are thinking about it" over a "let's act right now so we can look decisive in front of the electorate" any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

And I don't disagree but again it's not wise to show weakness no matter the situation. There are better ways to state what you wish without saying "I've got nothin!" The POTUS just can't afford to do that. If this were a one time event you could say it was a mistake. This is a trend.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
How about no Presidents/Kings/Pharaohs/God complex types at all?

As I had no idea what your response meant. I assume you'd rather not have any presidents, kings, pharoahs or leaders at all given your response.

If you meant we should have a POTUS that relies solely on extending an open trusting relationship with our adversaries without considering the consequences; well, that hasn't worked out so well.

Ok. Lets put it this way. Why do you need a leader?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,874
136
Roar!!!!

The solution is so easy and it's clear to anyone with half a brain! Even if it's not the president should at least pretend it is, the American people are stupid and scared, they just need reassurance that everything is going to be all right!

/s

It's a shame the OP feels the president must pander to the stupid and scared in order to show leadership. Not surprising though, bush did a good job pandering and it turned out great!/s

The best way to clean up a shitty mess is to throw more shit on it! Am I right OP?

If we had a real leader in the White House they would have cleaned up bush's mess already by...I have no idea but I'm sure it would be clean by now! /s
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,391
31
91
I'll take a "we don't know yet but are thinking about it" over a "let's act right now so we can look decisive in front of the electorate" any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Awww, but this way we're missing out on the racist's scintillating treatise on how Obama is incompetent for making a premature decision and how said decision (whatever it may be) is the wrong one!
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,874
136
Why? It's not what I need per say but what this country needs and in fact historically speaking what the world needs. Why wouldn't we need a leader?

Why does this country need that? Because they can't handle reality? Sorry for the wake up call;)
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
Uhmm, you're the one making the claim. You appear to think he isn't showing good leadership. Clearly you must have something in mind,, otherwise you're just ranting incoherently. So, what is it?

By the way, dominionseraph called you out pretty completely there.

Whatever you say....I have no intention of jumping down your rabbit hole nor do I ever want to have the same mindset. Your a very intelligent person judging by your posts but common sense goes a long way in this world. BTW it's not my sole opinion if you haven't been watching the news and I'm pretty sure history books will reflect the same sentiment regarding the current president's effectiveness some day. As far as DS's statement....how I'm now judged a racist by this post is just....bewildering.
 

runzwithsizorz

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2002
3,500
14
76
So what would good leadership be? Be very specific with what actions he should take, no broad platitudes.
Did you listen to David Camerons' speech? No hem, and haw, song, and dance, wishy washy sweep under the carpet, I'll get back to ya later statements. A leader instills confidence, he tells you what has already been done, what he's about to do, and what the goals are. He doesn't have to re-define, walk back, or explain he's statements a day, or two later.
Years ago, a mere passenger on an airline showed he's leadership with just two words, LET'S ROLL!
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
Roar!!!!

The solution is so easy and it's clear to anyone with half a brain! Even if it's not the president should at least pretend it is, the American people are stupid and scared, they just need reassurance that everything is going to be all right!

/s

It's a shame the OP feels the president must pander to the stupid and scared in order to show leadership. Not surprising though, bush did a good job pandering and it turned out great!/s

The best way to clean up a shitty mess is to throw more shit on it! Am I right OP?

If we had a real leader in the White House they would have cleaned up bush's mess already by...I have no idea but I'm sure it would be clean by now! /s

So the fact the POTUS has shown in the past and continues to show poor ineffective leadership is all due to Bush....got it.

This isn't my opinion alone....watch the news and ask someone with common sense.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
Awww, but this way we're missing out on the racist's scintillating treatise on how Obama is incompetent for making a premature decision and how said decision (whatever it may be) is the wrong one!

Again you miss the point in fill in your blanks with accusations of racism....wow.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
And I don't disagree but again it's not wise to show weakness no matter the situation. There are better ways to state what you wish without saying "I've got nothin!" The POTUS just can't afford to do that. If this were a one time event you could say it was a mistake. This is a trend.

That's nonsense. The audience for these press conferences is the electorate. ISIS / Russia / boogeyman du jour isn't going to bat an eye from words said in front of a press scrum. Do the American people need to be coddled and lied to that badly?

This is the root of the anti-intellectual strain currently rotting the conservative base. Taking time to think and wait for options to reveal themselves is strangely unacceptable. That's then followed, of course, with non-stop braying about how government can't do anything right.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,874
136
You can't even define leadership let alone tell us what he should be doing to show leadership, not only that but neither can these "other" people you are talking about.

That's called reality and if politicians used a little more of it we wouldn't have an idiot electorate voting politicians who offer up nothing of substance.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
That's nonsense. The audience for these press conferences is the electorate. ISIS / Russia / boogeyman du jour isn't going to bat an eye from words said in front of a press scrum. Do the American people need to be coddled and lied to that badly?

This is the root of the anti-intellectual strain currently rotting the conservative base. Taking time to think and wait for options to reveal themselves is strangely unacceptable. That's then followed, of course, with non-stop braying about how government can't do anything right.

OK if you say so....we'll just disagree for much of that response....not all of it.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
You can't even define leadership let alone tell us what he should be doing to show leadership, not only that but neither can these "other" people you are talking about.

That's called reality and if politicians used a little more of it we wouldn't have an idiot electorate voting politicians who offer up nothing of substance.

I'm not going to define something to you which you clearly cannot comprehend or would even be willing to. That's the reality of the situation. If you think it's OK to show weakness as the POTUS through words and action over and over then bully for you. Sometimes leadership means being very careful about what you say to the entire world and how you represent your country in that world. In fact, I have no intentions of discussing anything with you as you'll turn to insults as your response as is the norm.
 
Last edited: