What kind of president would you really like the most?

[Atreus21]

A ruthless partisan would have to be a moron who buys into some party or another. Somebody who works with both parties to compromise would have to be a moron who would pass party partisan compromise legislation. I want a President who knows what is right advocates for it, leads, and gets it done. Not gonna happen. Nobody will lead with the truth. Folk don't like the truth. But it doesn't really matter because the truth will set you free. You are free, aren't you, like me?

I don't think I can afford the drugs necessary for your kind of freedom.

 

[QuantumPion]

A ruthless partisan would have to be a moron who buys into some party or another. Somebody who works with both parties to compromise would have to be a moron who would pass party partisan compromise legislation. I want a President who knows what is right advocates for it, leads, and gets it done. Not gonna happen. Nobody will lead with the truth. Folk don't like the truth. But it doesn't really matter because the truth will set you free. You are free, aren't you, like me?

About half of that made sense. Above average for you :thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

In all seriousness, I'm not voting in that poll because neither is acceptable.

Same. False choice.

 

[bamacre]

About half of that made sense. Above average for you :thumbsup:

If only half of it made sense, then you're half dumb.

I don't think I can afford the drugs necessary for your kind of freedom.

His post contained no description of his "idea of freedom." In fact, his post was eloquently designed to be correct regardless of the reader's ideological or political beliefs.

 

[LumbergTech]

Please answer.

Poll is public, so be careful.

My suspicion is that politics is like a sport to most people. They like to see the opposition seething and gnashing their teeth in defeat. Therefore, I think most people secretly want the first option.

be careful? lol...what the hell does that mean

 

[Atreus21]

be careful? lol...what the hell does that mean

Poor choice of words maybe. I should've said, "so be aware."

 

[Steeplerot]

I think in times of economic crisis when opposition is playing stalling games you need to be partisan to clean up messes. But like all successful reformers this should be done firmly but with a open mind as to options. (Kinda like how FDR had Republicans in his cabinet for perspective)

 

[MrColin]

You should add the option "Someone with both principles and a backbone who will veto every single bill produced by the rest of our corrupt federal government"

 

[amdhunter]

A White one. Black ones just copy their predecessors.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think I can afford the drugs necessary for your kind of freedom.

I've thought about this, and I'm not voting either. No one politician is ever going to have my exact ideology and principles, so I certainly don't want a rigid ideologue. Yet at the same time, I don't necessarily want someone who compromises on every issue either.

Example:
MEN: I move we rape all the women.
WOMEN: WHAT? NO!
MEN: Fine, have it your way. We'll compromise and only rape the hot ones.

Sometimes compromise sucks more than rigid ideology based on principle.

Beyond that, a party willing to compromise can be beaten down by the other party; simply by raising the same issue over and over and getting a little bit, one party can completely transform the nation over time.

Give me a President who is:
Extremely liberal on personal freedom.
Extremely conservative fiscally.
Extremely liberal on the environment.
Extremely conservative with borders and foreign policy.

And I'll take him or her as a rigid ideologue who can compromise when necessary, thank you. And please make him or her 100% black, Sub-Saharan black. That will cut the progressive wing's use of the race card by almost 2%.

 

[Zebo]

Just one that works for the people I'd be happy with. I think money has such a powerful sway on all politicians they can't represent Americans. You see this in every bill from banking privatizing gains and socializing loses & MTM account board strong arming to health care profit protection act recently. I can't think of many bills in the last 20 years that was not laced with industry/elite kick backs. It's just the way it is. Even a program supposed to be for just for seniors gave pharma trillions in extra profit tagged in.

 

[Jadow]

I want someone who stands up for what he believes in, not some mealy mouthed compromiser.

 

[Infohawk]

The problem is that on each issue there are special interests that want blood to be spilled before their pet issue is compromised on. In the end, the vast majority of issues become highly partisan.

 

[Craig234]

The poll is made worthless by terrible, biased wording.

A ruthless partisan who will shove aside all opposition to get his or her agenda passed.
A moderate who compromises with both parties as necessary.

Let's take FDR as an example - a President who came in in one environment, and pushed for large changes.

He pretty much fits the definition of the first choice in what it's trying to list in this poll - but was he as described?

First the word ruthless. Some people who were ruthless are ones like Ho Chi Minh, or Saddam Hussein, who murdered opponents. What does 'ruthless' mean here? Will the president kill, imprison, censor opponents? Is there anything 'ruthless' a president who has opinion you don't call moderate does that a 'moderate' President can't do too?

Second the word "partisan". You are really showing your 'centrist bias' here. Do you know what the word means? What do you mean by it? If a President says "we need to make a major change in union rights and a public works program" is that "partisan"? Why? How more so that saying "we must not make much change"? It's a nonsensical word as you use it that doesn't mean anything but name-calling. It's saying 'by definition, people who agree with you are not 'partisan' and that makes them correct.'

Third, 'shove aside all opposition'. What does that mean? You don't say any specifics.

More importantly, you Don't say a word about the difference between pushing GOOD policy and BAD policy! They're the same to you, presumably, in that case.

How do you generically say you are for or agaisnt pushing hard on EVERY policy with no idea what it is? That's more of your centrist bias - equating all policies not 'moderate'.

Next, the very word 'moderate' is meaningless as you use it - its definition changes over time, for one thing. Is the 'moderate' policy on slavery or tax rates the same in 1800, 1950, and today? Of course not. What was the 'moderate' tax rate when JFK took office versus today?

One more. You don't allow for one of the parties radicalizing. Is JFK compromsing with Republicans the same as Obama - back when there were actually 'liberal Republicans' before the purge, before many radical shifts to the right, when there were a handful of filibusters per year compared to smashing the all-time records with hundreds of filibusters to obstruct now? Is that 'compromise' when one side says they are voting no on THEIR OWN PROPOSAL when the other side adopts it?

You are showing a large bias making the poll wording ruin the picks.

 

[comptr6]

With Putin going off on shirtless hunting trips in the wilderness of the USSR we need a president who can show the world we aren't a bunch of liberal pussies.

My ideal president needs to be between 5-11 and 6-1 and between 200-215 lbs mostly muscle, but not too bulky. Rugged good looks, a strong jaw preferably blond hair and blue eyes but will settle for dark hair and eyes.

He should be an experienced hunter and fisherman and be able to answer questions about fly rods, guns, hunting and fishing techniques and so on to the press. Obviously he will be used to spending long periods of time away from civilization on hunting and camping trips, hopefully he owns his own lodge or Ranch were he can spend most of his time, but if not he can just rent one while he's president. It would also be great if he knew how to ride horses at an expert level but if not that won't be a problem as he can be trained.

 

[soundforbjt]

With Putin going off on shirtless hunting trips in the wilderness of the USSR we need a president who can show the world we aren't a bunch of liberal pussies.

My ideal president needs to be between 5-11 and 6-1 and between 200-215 lbs mostly muscle, but not too bulky. Rugged good looks, a strong jaw preferably blond hair and blue eyes but will settle for dark hair and eyes.

He should be an experienced hunter and fisherman and be able to answer questions about fly rods, guns, hunting and fishing techniques and so on to the press. Obviously he will be used to spending long periods of time away from civilization on hunting and camping trips, hopefully he owns his own lodge or Ranch were he can spend most of his time, but if not he can just rent one while he's president. It would also be great if he knew how to ride horses at an expert level but if not that won't be a problem as he can be trained.

Sounds like someone describing their dream date !!!:sneaky:

 

[Nemesis 1]

At this time right now I prefer a dead one

 

[zsdersw]

At this time right now I prefer a dead one

So, you'd like Biden to be POTUS?

 

[BoberFett]

Since we're talking about hypotheticals and ideal situations I'd rather see compromise, but that makes the rather large assumption that everyone involved has good intentions and merely disagree on the methods. In reality, politicians are all crooked and I'd rather see DC nuked at this point than have a president at all.

 

[werepossum]

So, you'd like Biden to be POTUS?

Dude, don't even joke about that.

I'm going to imagine he's referring to zombie Reagan . . .