Describe your ideal presidential candidate here.

[Peregrinator]

I'm curious. I know the person doesn't exist, but what would really make you enthusiastic? What are the issues and where would your choice stand on them? What policies would you like to see promised, assuming that a quality of the ideal candidate is that he or she would actually try to implement them once in office?

 

[PannieMonster]

I'm curious. I know the person doesn't exist, but what would really make you enthusiastic? What are the issues and where would your choice stand on them? What policies would you like to see promised, assuming that a quality of the ideal candidate is that he or she would actually try to implement them once in office?

Probably someone that would put doing what is right for the country above his or her politics for starters.

 

[Peregrinator]

Probably someone that would put doing what is right for the country above his or her politics for starters.

I think a lot of them actually believe they do that, at least most (some?) of the time. I'll bet it feels impossible to get anything done because the politics get in the way.

 

[eyer]

'
1st choice: Samuel Adams

2nd choice: Patrick Henry

3rd choice: George Mason

 

[PannieMonster]

I think a lot of them actually believe they do that, at least most (some?) of the time. I'll bet it feels impossible to get anything done because the politics get in the way.

Right now, that's the rub. Half the country thinks one way and the other half thinks the other way about what is right for the country. Both sides is what makes up the politics, but what I am saying, is having a candidate that looks at both sides, considers all points of view, and then decides what the best course of action would be when setting the agenda. I also realize that this is not the president's decision alone, so congress would have to actually come together in a more bipartisan way and hammer out their differences and also do what is right.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

The perfect candidate is almost never the perfect president. Good candidates are almost always populists, and good presidents are almost always either demagogues or compromisers. Populist presidents are seen as weak.

 

[Peregrinator]

'
1st choice: Samuel Adams

2nd choice: Patrick Henry

3rd choice: George Mason

Reasons?

Right now, that's the rub. Half the country thinks one way and the other half thinks the other way about what is right for the country. Both sides is what makes up the politics, but what I am saying, is having a candidate that looks at both sides, considers all points of view, and then decides what the best course of action would be when setting the agenda. I also realize that this is not the president's decision alone, so congress would have to actually come together in a more bipartisan way and hammer out their differences and also do what is right.

Yup, agreed. We'll fix congress another time. I'd like to see a rationalist in office, someone who would look at each issue and publicly express the reasoning behind his positions. We get glimpses of that occasionally, but nowhere near enough for my taste, and all too often they're just full of shit.

The perfect candidate is almost never the perfect president. Good candidates are almost always populists, and good presidents are almost always either demagogues or compromisers. Populist presidents are seen as weak.

This is also very true. In that case, what would you like to see in a president?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

A giant supercomputer, ruling with absolute fairness through mathematical logic, incapable of bias and impervious to human conceits and weaknesses, needing only an inexhaustible power source.

 

[philosophygirl]

A completely honest one. One who can see the flaws in the system and work around them or get others on board to change them. One not allied with a party. One who can balance social and economic issues. Should probably possess charm, wit and mind control abilities.

 

[Peregrinator]

A giant supercomputer, ruling with absolute fairness through mathematical logic, incapable of bias and impervious to human conceits and weaknesses, needing only an inexhaustible power source.

So, Ronald Reagan?

 

[Peregrinator]

A completely honest one. One who can see the flaws in the system and work around them or get others on board to change them. One not allied with a party. One who can balance social and economic issues. Should probably possess charm, wit and mind control abilities.

Like Nixon?

 

[philosophygirl]

So, Ronald Reagan?

Like Nixon?

Listen a super computer and an honest politician are very serious answers. If you are going to joke around...I'm going to pout.

 

[Peregrinator]

Listen a super computer and an honest politician are very serious answers. If you are going to joke around...I'm going to pout.

I bet it's cute when you pout.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Reasons?

Yup, agreed. We'll fix congress another time. I'd like to see a rationalist in office, someone who would look at each issue and publicly express the reasoning behind his positions. We get glimpses of that occasionally, but nowhere near enough for my taste, and all too often they're just full of shit.


This is also very true. In that case, what would you like to see in a president?

I consider myself out of the mainstream. Because of that, I don't expect or want a president who says or feels all the things I think or feel. I think most of the country--a plurality, anyway--wants the man Bush II was trying (but just wasn't able) to be: tough and principled with a Christian sense of duty and morality. I've said this here before, but I think Mike Huckabee was computer-designed to be president of the United States, and if he doesn't run/win this time (and Obama is exceedingly likely to be reelected) I can pretty much guarantee a Huckabee presidency next time.

For myself, I'd like someone to model reason and constructive discourse, to preach both principle and compassion, while handling international relations with a unified sense of America's philosophy and role. Think of an old Nebraska country doctor who secretly went to Yale and Stanford.

 

[Byron In Exile]

A giant supercomputer, ruling with absolute fairness through mathematical logic, incapable of bias and impervious to human conceits and weaknesses, needing only an inexhaustible power source.

http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/still-image/Colossus-%20The%20Forbin%20Project/102680110.03.01.lg.jpg

 

[philosophygirl]

I bet it's cute when you pout.

*folds arms and sticks out bottom lip*

I hope the super computer gets you.

 

[Peregrinator]

I consider myself out of the mainstream. Because of that, I don't expect or want a president who says or feels all the things I think or feel. I think most of the country--a plurality, anyway--wants the man Bush II was trying (but just wasn't able) to be: tough and principled with a Christian sense of duty and morality. I've said this here before, but I think Mike Huckabee was computer-designed to be president of the United States, and if he doesn't run/win this time (and Obama is exceedingly likely to be reelected) I can pretty much guarantee a Huckabee presidency next time.

For myself, I'd like someone to model reason and constructive discourse, to preach both principle and compassion, while handling international relations with a unified sense of America's philosophy and role. Think of an old Nebraska country doctor who secretly went to Yale and Stanford.

Interesting idea, that because you're not mainstream you don't want a president who agrees with you. Is that because you live by principles you think are good for you but not for the country, or because you value majority opinion over your own? Some other reason?

Huckabee is reflective of the majority, I think, but do you also think he's a good choice? I'm wary of bread and circuses and irrational choices made by the majority. I'm not sure I think that the majority of voters makes good, clear, rational choices in voting. So generally, while I support whatever choice is made, I reserve the right to think a better choice could have been made.

 

[Peregrinator]

*folds arms and sticks out bottom lip*

I hope the super computer gets you.

I hope you get me.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Interesting idea, that because you're not mainstream you don't want a president who agrees with you. Is that because you live by principles you think are good for you but not for the country, or because you value majority opinion over your own? Some other reason?

Huckabee is reflective of the majority, I think, but do you also think he's a good choice? I'm wary of bread and circuses and irrational choices made by the majority. I'm not sure I think that the majority of voters makes good, clear, rational choices in voting. So generally, while I support whatever choice is made, I reserve the right to think a better choice could have been made.

That's the thing: they're the majority. By definition, that's the country. If you disagree with them, it is you making the outlying judgment, not them. (By way of explaining the first question and addressing the second statement, all at once.)

 

[philosophygirl]

I hope you get me.

I'd only want you for your brains.

 

[Peregrinator]

That's the thing: they're the majority. By definition, that's the country. If you disagree with them, it is you making the outlying judgment, not them. (By way of explaining the first question and addressing the second statement, all at once.)

What if they're wrong? You know, what if they vote for mass suicide or some damn thing? Is Jim Jones still the ideal president?

 

[Peregrinator]

I'd only want you for your brains.

Go and examine Popcorn####'s sigline. Quickly.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

What if they're wrong? You know, what if they vote for mass suicide or some damn thing? Is Jim Jones still the ideal president?

They're not wrong, by definition. What you thought the country was, is wrong. They ARE the country.

 

[vrosej10]

Someone who'll be my total handpuppet. *evil laugh*

 

[Peregrinator]

They're not wrong, by definition. What you thought the country was, is wrong. They ARE the country.

I get that. So what you seem to be saying is that the ideal president reflects the majority opinion. Under what circumstances, then, do we ever deviate from the status quo? Just when enough people think we should? That doesn't take into account information the pres has that the citizens don't have. Does it?