5 ms·

Hi masondixon! > But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitari

Hi masondixon! > But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis? Would it be fair then to say that because doctors have failed to cure patients, that we should stop having doctors treat the sick? Or that because people with drivers licenses have crashed cars, that we should allow people without them to drive cars?

tomp 10y ago
> failed to avoid crisis "failed to avoid" starting a war?
- prairiedogg 10y ago
  Hi tomp! I was trying to summarize masondixon's stated points about the negative effect electing "statesmen" have had. masondixon listed: - two wars - Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS - Syria is a humanitarian nightmare - we had a huge financial crash - and terrorism is on the rise I thought "crisis" could fairly characterize any one of these, but what I consider the substance of my response was what followed, when I asked masondixon to clarify his or her logical argument and extended it by analogy to other common points of public concern, like medicine and transportation safety. I think you're correct to point out that "starting a war" and "avoiding crisis" are substantively different and accept (what I perceive to be) your criticism.
masondixon 10y ago
> So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis? Nope. Only the fact that a "statesman" doesn't imply good foreign policy. Trump does imply more uncertainty though I would say. We will see. Its worth trying out. Unless you think he will launch the nukes. Which is a big part of the liberal narrative.
- 59nadir 10y ago
  > Its worth trying out. I think this sums most of it up. People think things are getting worse and their lives very likely are, so why not try something different? It's the reason for most "unforeseen" results for ultrarightwing parties in Europe, I imagine. People want "someone who'll stir the pot". I've never felt like that, but I can understand the sentiment, after hearing it so many times.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    How willing you are to take a chance depends on how desperate you are.
    - mch82 10y ago
      Here's an alternative way to think about "desperation" (not saying this is necessarily the right way). We have a lot of people in this country who are struggling financially. Their choice of geographic location, education, and skills (things they choose) aren't lining up with the 2016 economy (which they didn't choose). They voted Republican. We also have a lot of people who are struggling socially and financially. They were born Mexican, Muslim, or homosexual (things they are) and are scared because other people want to deport them, jail them, or kick them out of the military. They voted Democrat. Now, the Democrats offered to work with the Republicans to give them more choices and options. The Republicans said, "No way. We're staying put and rolling the dice with your civil rights." Is it fair that a lot of people might feel like their freedom got sold out this week?
      - masondixon 10y ago
        > We also have a lot of people who are struggling socially and financially. They were born Mexican, Muslim, or homosexual (things they are) and are scared because other people want to deport them, jail them, or kick them out of the military. They voted Democrat. They only need to be scared if they are Mexican and here illegally. Everyone else is being needlessly scared by the media and DNC.
rubberstamp 10y ago
Hi prairiedogg, Well this thread is basically nitpicking each other. Let me tell you one thing. If you are a citizen of USA, you could run for president and be one as long as you are win a majority in a majority of states. Now, if you are interested in politics you, like me, would be following political decisions from a variety of sources and try to analyze it(see if its truth and try to understand if its fair to the citizens and such). You don't have to necessarily be a traditional politician/statesman(sad thing is most traditional politicians only cares about themselves and is more interested in coming across as having done something. Ideally they would do nothing and just get credit for doing all the good). My argument is you are as good as any statesman so long as you have a working brain. Be rational, have a willingness to find a solution for general problems faced by having conversation affected and actually do what is necessary to correct it. Make a level playing field for everyone so that everyone can actually live a good life instead of letting greed run amok. I do not like career politicians who are in politics just so in hopes of wielding power than to actually use it responsibly, but no, most "statesman" have no willings to study problems and find solutions, and pays a lobbyist to find a solution who has no incentives to come up with even a remotely correct solution. They do that because people are not paying much attention to what they do and they get away with it as injustices done to them would be mostly forgotten/drowned within a week in all the noise.
- prairiedogg 10y ago
  Hi rubberstamp! I disagree that this thread is "just nitpicking each other" - I think it's been both educational and civil. For instance, when masondixon learned that Reagan had a political career before his presidency, masondixon thanked dbmikus for pointing it out. It's hard to find that level of candor on an internet discussion board - and masondixon seemed to want a genuine dialog that was free of the ad-hominem attacks that he or she had apparently been experiencing on other sites. In regards to your "argument", I don't find it convincing: > My argument is you are as good as any statesman so long as you have a working brain. I disagree. My brain works reasonably well, but I don't consider myself fit to fill the office of the presidency - for a wide variety of reasons. I have no understanding of large portions of the world or even of the United States itself. I don't know how economics works on a macro scale. Just as I would never hire a person whose brain worked well, but had never written a line of code to fill the most important engineering role in my company, I would never say that just because my brain worked well, that I would be a good statesman or a good choice for president of the United States.
throwawayf98765 10y ago
As a leftist living outside of America. The thing is that some of us see these "statesmen" as the origin of the crisis. As a leftist, I wouldn't want someone like Hillary's personal friend plunging my country into chaos and give power to a guy who would make Trump seem like Mother Theresa just because the people choose to elect an actual left wing candidate. I know this wasn't a relevant question to americans, not even to the "tolerant" and "progressive" Clinton supporters. So yeah, personally, I could be wrong, but I'll take a bet with the one that at least doesn't seem like a statesman.
throwawayf98765 10y ago
As a leftist living outside of America. The thing is that some of us see these "statesmen" as the origin of the crisis. As a leftist, I wouldn't want someone like Hillary's personal friend plunging my country into chaos and give power to a guy who would make Trump seem like Mother Theresa just because the people choose to elect an actual left wing candidate. I know this wasn't a relevant question to americans, not even to the "tolerant" and "progressive" Clinton supporters. So yeah, personally, I could be wrong, but I'll take a bet that things could be different with the one that at least doesn't seem like a "statesman".

tomp 10y ago

> failed to avoid crisis "failed to avoid" starting a war?

prairiedogg 10y ago
Hi tomp! I was trying to summarize masondixon's stated points about the negative effect electing "statesmen" have had. masondixon listed: - two wars - Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS - Syria is a humanitarian nightmare - we had a huge financial crash - and terrorism is on the rise I thought "crisis" could fairly characterize any one of these, but what I consider the substance of my response was what followed, when I asked masondixon to clarify his or her logical argument and extended it by analogy to other common points of public concern, like medicine and transportation safety. I think you're correct to point out that "starting a war" and "avoiding crisis" are substantively different and accept (what I perceive to be) your criticism.

masondixon 10y ago

> So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis? Nope. Only the fact that a "statesman" doesn't imply good foreign policy. Trump does imply more uncertainty though I would say. We will see. Its worth trying out. Unless you think he will launch the nukes. Which is a big part of the liberal narrative.

59nadir 10y ago
> Its worth trying out. I think this sums most of it up. People think things are getting worse and their lives very likely are, so why not try something different? It's the reason for most "unforeseen" results for ultrarightwing parties in Europe, I imagine. People want "someone who'll stir the pot". I've never felt like that, but I can understand the sentiment, after hearing it so many times.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  How willing you are to take a chance depends on how desperate you are.
  - mch82 10y ago
    Here's an alternative way to think about "desperation" (not saying this is necessarily the right way). We have a lot of people in this country who are struggling financially. Their choice of geographic location, education, and skills (things they choose) aren't lining up with the 2016 economy (which they didn't choose). They voted Republican. We also have a lot of people who are struggling socially and financially. They were born Mexican, Muslim, or homosexual (things they are) and are scared because other people want to deport them, jail them, or kick them out of the military. They voted Democrat. Now, the Democrats offered to work with the Republicans to give them more choices and options. The Republicans said, "No way. We're staying put and rolling the dice with your civil rights." Is it fair that a lot of people might feel like their freedom got sold out this week?
    - masondixon 10y ago
      > We also have a lot of people who are struggling socially and financially. They were born Mexican, Muslim, or homosexual (things they are) and are scared because other people want to deport them, jail them, or kick them out of the military. They voted Democrat. They only need to be scared if they are Mexican and here illegally. Everyone else is being needlessly scared by the media and DNC.

rubberstamp 10y ago

Hi prairiedogg, Well this thread is basically nitpicking each other. Let me tell you one thing. If you are a citizen of USA, you could run for president and be one as long as you are win a majority in a majority of states. Now, if you are interested in politics you, like me, would be following political decisions from a variety of sources and try to analyze it(see if its truth and try to understand if its fair to the citizens and such). You don't have to necessarily be a traditional politician/statesman(sad thing is most traditional politicians only cares about themselves and is more interested in coming across as having done something. Ideally they would do nothing and just get credit for doing all the good). My argument is you are as good as any statesman so long as you have a working brain. Be rational, have a willingness to find a solution for general problems faced by having conversation affected and actually do what is necessary to correct it. Make a level playing field for everyone so that everyone can actually live a good life instead of letting greed run amok. I do not like career politicians who are in politics just so in hopes of wielding power than to actually use it responsibly, but no, most "statesman" have no willings to study problems and find solutions, and pays a lobbyist to find a solution who has no incentives to come up with even a remotely correct solution. They do that because people are not paying much attention to what they do and they get away with it as injustices done to them would be mostly forgotten/drowned within a week in all the noise.

prairiedogg 10y ago
Hi rubberstamp! I disagree that this thread is "just nitpicking each other" - I think it's been both educational and civil. For instance, when masondixon learned that Reagan had a political career before his presidency, masondixon thanked dbmikus for pointing it out. It's hard to find that level of candor on an internet discussion board - and masondixon seemed to want a genuine dialog that was free of the ad-hominem attacks that he or she had apparently been experiencing on other sites. In regards to your "argument", I don't find it convincing: > My argument is you are as good as any statesman so long as you have a working brain. I disagree. My brain works reasonably well, but I don't consider myself fit to fill the office of the presidency - for a wide variety of reasons. I have no understanding of large portions of the world or even of the United States itself. I don't know how economics works on a macro scale. Just as I would never hire a person whose brain worked well, but had never written a line of code to fill the most important engineering role in my company, I would never say that just because my brain worked well, that I would be a good statesman or a good choice for president of the United States.

throwawayf98765 10y ago

As a leftist living outside of America. The thing is that some of us see these "statesmen" as the origin of the crisis. As a leftist, I wouldn't want someone like Hillary's personal friend plunging my country into chaos and give power to a guy who would make Trump seem like Mother Theresa just because the people choose to elect an actual left wing candidate. I know this wasn't a relevant question to americans, not even to the "tolerant" and "progressive" Clinton supporters. So yeah, personally, I could be wrong, but I'll take a bet with the one that at least doesn't seem like a statesman.

throwawayf98765 10y ago

As a leftist living outside of America. The thing is that some of us see these "statesmen" as the origin of the crisis. As a leftist, I wouldn't want someone like Hillary's personal friend plunging my country into chaos and give power to a guy who would make Trump seem like Mother Theresa just because the people choose to elect an actual left wing candidate. I know this wasn't a relevant question to americans, not even to the "tolerant" and "progressive" Clinton supporters. So yeah, personally, I could be wrong, but I'll take a bet that things could be different with the one that at least doesn't seem like a "statesman".