## You idea of a president

Post by Jay Feely » Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:09 am

What do you think are qualities a president must have?
- To be honest
- To be fair
- To critically analyze things before making decisions
- To serve the needs of the country
Of course, a president may not have those qualities but those are my views on how a president to be like. This is not the place to be judgmental based on race, sex, or nationality.
You will have to subdue me to restrain me. I been a bad boy so make sure you torture me too with anything but pain.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Chris12 » Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:32 am

To serve the needs of his country, i can't say i care how he does that.
The same could be said about any kind of leader instead of just a president.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by bzzart » Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:39 pm

To lead the country in the best way possible, to find the best solution, and to make smart decisions. That's what I think the president should do.
This is where I'm supposed to put a signature. Hooray.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Reidy » Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:47 am

Some mix between David Palmer in 24 and Jed Bartlett in the West Wing.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by zanev » Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:41 pm

A mix between Marx and Stalin.
I have no issues living in a socialist state with a king.
I close my eyes, Inis Mona
And reminisce of those palmy days
I moon o'er you, Inis Mona
As long as I breathe
I'll call you my home

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by mistofoleese » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:29 am

We already had him, we need to find a way to bring back the Gipper. Pretty much everyone was cool when he was the president everyone respected us those who didnt feared us.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Chris12 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:55 am

The gipper?

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Chase Ricks » Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:26 am

Gerald Ford aka The Gipper. lol
From whence I came and whence I went heaven said I was too evil and sent me to hell. Demons and devils succeeded in breaking my soul.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by sarobah » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:06 pm

> Chris12 wrote:The gipper?

> Shane Bikman wrote:Gerald Ford aka The Gipper. lol

Ronnie Raygun, I believe.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Jack Roper » Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:01 pm

The Gipper, President Reagan, could not get nominated by today's Republican Party. He raised taxes, gave illegal immigrants amnesty, shunned pro-Life demonstations (even when they were right across the street from the White House), and worst of all, agreed to begin nuclear disarmment with Gorbachev. He would be deemed a traitor now.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Kyle » Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:17 pm

The Gipper was Ronald Reagan, named for a movie role he had when he played Knute Rockne, legendary football coach at Notre Dame back in the early days of college football. The real Gipper was George Gipp, a player who played for Notre Dame back around World War I.
Anyway, on to the actual question...
It's a little difficult to answer this, because different issues come up in different times. Some issues, like national security and the economy, will always be there, but others are time-period specific. So on that, I'll give a few qualities, which are all necessarily vague:
-The president needs to be a leader. I figure this one is fairly self-explanatory for the most part.
-The president needs to know to listen to the right people. This one was hard for me to explain, and probably harder to do in reality. Bad advice taken by presidents has gotten this country in a lot of trouble (see Bush's advisers). That said, the president cannot do his/her job alone. That's why the Cabinet exists.
-I like the one about critically analyzing decisions, so I'll steal that one.
-The president needs to know when to step back. This one is going to be extremely difficult to ever see again, because so many people these days think the government can/should fix every little problem we have and seem to think the president can do anything. But there are times the president, and the government in general, need to step away from a problem.
And really, Stalin? One of the world's worst dictatorial mass-murderers who ever lived?

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by fabolous1024 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:39 pm

> Reidy wrote:Some mix between David Palmer in 24 and Jed Bartlett in the West Wing.

Jack Bauer for President. He'd slash our debt, kill our deficits, and torture taxes. How? You don't need to know how.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Kyle » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:31 pm

Jack Bauer would have all our problems fixed in 24 hours too.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Chris12 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:29 pm

> Kyle wrote:
> And really, Stalin? One of the world's worst dictatorial mass-murderers who ever lived?

Sounds weird but actually a lot of Russians say they would vote for him if he somehow became up and into politics again, pretty disturbing

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Chase Ricks » Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:12 am

Been thinking about this for awhile and figured I should say what I honestly believe are the traits necessary for one to be a successful president.
1) Doing what you feel is the right thing to do to stop war even in the face of international outcry.
2) Do not be afraid to help out even the most hopeless cause. Charity is the pure love of Christ.
3) Never let yourself be forced into saying things you know you will never follow through on.
4) Having a Cabinet made from the poor and the middle class instead of only the wealthy.
5) Going out of your way literally to make even your country's enemies rethink that perhaps they have wasted too much propaganda on the wrong ideas about you.
6) Not being afraid to get your hands dirty to help out at a disaster relief site.
7) Never going back on your word.
Totally hardworking even during the holidays until you are forced to relax for your own health.
Yes I am very certain these traits are hard to come by in the current world but I think they are a step in the right direction.
From whence I came and whence I went heaven said I was too evil and sent me to hell. Demons and devils succeeded in breaking my soul.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by RedCas94 » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:51 pm

I like what Shane said but you gotta remember the president can't just make any decision he wants. It has to pass through the idiots in the House of Reps and the Senate. If you ask me you need to clean house there instead of automatically blaming the president(whoever is in office, not just Obama). He's just a figurehead at times.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by fabolous1024 » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:34 pm

> Shane Bikman wrote:Been thinking about this for awhile and figured I should say what I honestly believe are the traits necessary for one to be a successful president.
> 1) Doing what you feel is the right thing to do to stop war even in the face of international outcry.
> 2) Do not be afraid to help out even the most hopeless cause. Charity is the pure love of Christ.
> 3) Never let yourself be forced into saying things you know you will never follow through on.
> 4) Having a Cabinet made from the poor and the middle class instead of only the wealthy.
> 5) Going out of your way literally to make even your country's enemies rethink that perhaps they have wasted too much propaganda on the wrong ideas about you.
> 6) Not being afraid to get your hands dirty to help out at a disaster relief site.
> 7) Never going back on your word.
> Totally hardworking even during the holidays until you are forced to relax for your own health.
> Yes I am very certain these traits are hard to come by in the current world but I think they are a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, most of these traits are actually horrible traits for a President. The first is a good one, absolutely. I'd add to start a war even in the face of international outcry/silence as well (Darfur and other massacres the world ignored). The problem with these traits are that they have no connection with the reality of being President. You can't help even the most hopeless causes because help is not free. You can't go and work at a disaster relief site because you don't have time just like you don't have the time or money to make countries rethink their views of you. Lives, money, and time are not infinite resources.The problem with, say, the 4th, is that the poor and middle class have little to no understanding of how to run something as big as the largest country in the world. Would you want a gas station attendant deciding how much to fund the NIH or NSF? The people with the actual intelligence and experience to do such important jobs are overwhelmingly "wealthy" types.
These are good traits for a parent, not a President. Now, if a President had those values, but knew they were totally impractical, I might be obliged to agree. However, I'm not even sure they would make you a good President in that case either.
I honestly can't say I know exactly what the best traits for a President are. I think it's a god awful job. In fact, it's been said that the people most qualified to be a President are the ones smart enough to know they never want to be President. Think of allllllllll the things a President has to deal with. Ever notice how Presidents look rather terrible when they've made it into an 8th year? What a life it must be to wake up every single morning to get a briefing on how you may be making decisions concerning the lives of 1,000 people (some conflict in a region of the world few have heard of in your country is flaring up) or 100,000,000 people (did the Soviet Union deploy a new generation of ICBMs?). Hell, when I wake up, the most important decision I have to make in the first couple of hours is what kind of cereal I want. Eff that.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by mistofoleese » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:50 pm

> Kyle wrote:The Gipper was Ronald Reagan, named for a movie role he had when he played Knute Rockne, legendary football coach at Notre Dame back in the early days of college football. The real Gipper was George Gipp, a player who played for Notre Dame back around World War I.
> Anyway, on to the actual question...
> It's a little difficult to answer this, because different issues come up in different times. Some issues, like national security and the economy, will always be there, but others are time-period specific. So on that, I'll give a few qualities, which are all necessarily vague:
> -The president needs to be a leader. I figure this one is fairly self-explanatory for the most part.
> -The president needs to know to listen to the right people. This one was hard for me to explain, and probably harder to do in reality. Bad advice taken by presidents has gotten this country in a lot of trouble (see Bush's advisers). That said, the president cannot do his/her job alone. That's why the Cabinet exists.
> -I like the one about critically analyzing decisions, so I'll steal that one.
> -The president needs to know when to step back. This one is going to be extremely difficult to ever see again, because so many people these days think the government can/should fix every little problem we have and seem to think the president can do anything. But there are times the president, and the government in general, need to step away from a problem.
> And really, Stalin? One of the world's worst dictatorial mass-murderers who ever lived?

Impressive MOST Impressive I really didnt think anyone would know who the gipper was I must admit Kyle you do make fair point. To be fair Regan was the first C Commander in chief I served under I felt he did a lot for the military but thats an old soldiers opinion Hey how about Jesse Ventura he's a former Gov, A fellow Veteran, and he knows how and when to step back and let his troops do what need to be done what do you think ?
As far as the bush advisers go who knows if they would have left us go and do what we wanted to back in 91 and taken out Saddam when we had the chance like Stormin Norman wanted to these last 20 years would have turned out a lot differently and a lot of my friends who gave all would still be around
I Also agree Kyle Stalin was the worst

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by drawscore » Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:57 pm

Bah, just make me king. I'll change my name to "Attila the First," reduce unemployment and welfare to a max of 26 weeks, bomb the crap out of nations that piss me off, reinstate the draft, make sure the veterans are well taken care of, throw traitors like "Hanoi Jane" Fonda into a pit full of alligators, and have us at war with most of the world. And, like Patton, I'd make 'em think it was their own damn fault. Now, excuse me while I go look for my tinfoil hat.
Drawscore

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by rick63tied » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:51 pm

I think a president should maybe..... I don't know how to put it. Give a damn about his/her country.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:11 pm

What we need is another Teddy Roosevelt. Strong-willed but also fair minded and scrupulously honest; he considered the rights of the average wage-earner equally with those of big business - even though he was a Republican! He fought against the kind of rampant greed and corruption we take for granted today. He was in many way one of the greatest Presidents the United States ever had!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by drawscore » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:27 pm

The best president ever, was William Henry Harrison (1841). President Harrison gave a three hour inauguration speech on March 4, 1841, in the teeth of inclement weather, and without wearing a hat and scarf. He contracted pneumonia, and died a month later. He was the best president because he wasn't in office long enough to screw anything up.
As for 20th century presidents, I'd have to go with the two that earned the title of "Major bad ass:" Harry Truman, who dropped the bombs on Japan to end WWII, and Ronald Reagan. The standing joke between his election in early November 1980, and his inauguration in January 1981, was "What's round and flat, and glows in the dark?" The answer was "Iran, the day after Reagan takes office." The ayatollahs were scared shitless of him, and immediately upon his inauguration, they released the American embassy hostages.
Drawscore

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:01 am

Yep. I remember that clearly; I was in my 20s at the time. He had resolve, and that's vital in a President. It's one of the things I liked most about him, and one of the reasons why I *still* like him! Love him or hate him, he got shit done!!!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by drawscore » Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:11 pm

> Jason Toddman wrote:Yep. I remember that clearly; I was in my 20s at the time. He had resolve, and that's vital in a President. It's one of the things I liked most about him, and one of the reasons why I *still* like him! Love him or hate him, he got shit done!!!

True. And very much unlike the current White House occupant. The Keystone pipeline? Obama doesn't want to make a decision on it until after the election. Bunker buster bombs for Israel? Yes, but after the election. In fact, Obama is pressuring Israel to refrain from attacking Iran until 2013.
With Obama, it's "Kick the can down the road, and either blame Bush, or let someone else worry about it."
Drawscore

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:58 pm

> drawscore wrote:

> > Jason Toddman wrote:Yep. I remember that clearly; I was in my 20s at the time. He had resolve, and that's vital in a President. It's one of the things I liked most about him, and one of the reasons why I *still* like him! Love him or hate him, he got shit done!!!

> True. And very much unlike the current White House occupant. The Keystone pipeline? Obama doesn't want to make a decision on it until after the election. Bunker buster bombs for Israel? Yes, but after the election. In fact, Obama is pressuring Israel to refrain from attacking Iran until 2013.
> With Obama, it's "Kick the can down the road, and either blame Bush, or let someone else worry about it."
> Drawscore

I might point out that you're playing the same blame game with Obama that you say I've been playing with Bush.
And in both cases it's really been a LOT more complicated than that.
The blame can be spread around quite liberally - not just to Congress but our entire system of government - and even to the voters who let it happen (that is, every one of us 18 years or older). Our two-party political system is becoming a failure, with the two policial parties becoming so wide apart that no one can get anything done. I think that until we establish a multi-party system and can get some Moderates back into government who understand the fine art of compromise (which means understanding when things need to be balanced; it does NOT mean a lack of conviction for one's beliefs), things will continue to stagnate until the whole system collapses from its own weight. It's happened to other countries; and unfortunately there's absolutely NO reason why it can't happen to the USA too!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Kyle » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:56 pm

At the risk of getting off-topic, the major problem with having more than two major political parties is you run the risk of many elections not having anyone win the majority of votes. This is particularly important in the presidential election, which goes to Congress if there is not anyone with a majority of the 538 Electoral College votes. Do you really want the House of Representatives deciding our presidential elections? That's a very real possibility with more than 2 major parties. This is why third parties don't last long (that, and they tend to be single-issue parties that appeal to very small segments of the population, or are extremely radical).
You'd need a complete overhaul of the American political system for 3 or more major parties to work out.

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by drawscore » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:05 pm

> Jason Toddman wrote:I might point out that you're playing the same blame game with Obama that you say I've been playing with Bush.
> And in both cases it's really been a LOT more complicated than that.
> The blame can be spread around quite liberally - not just to Congress but our entire system of government - and even to the voters who let it happen (that is, every one of us 18 years or older). Our two-party political system is becoming a failure, with the two political parties becoming so wide apart that no one can get anything done. I think that until we establish a multi-party system and can get some Moderates back into government who understand the fine art of compromise (which means understanding when things need to be balanced; it does NOT mean a lack of conviction for one's beliefs), things will continue to stagnate until the whole system collapses from its own weight. It's happened to other countries; and unfortunately there's absolutely NO reason why it can't happen to the USA too!

The difference, is that Bush left office more than three years ago. Obama is in office now. And rightly or wrongly, whoever is in office, liberal or conservative; Democrat or Republican, is going to catch the flak for unemployment, rising gas prices, and everything else that makes the population think the country is going to hell in a handbasket.
I think we're stuck with the two party system. If we ran three or more candidates for president, and none got the 270 electoral votes needed for election, the election of the president is tossed into the House of Representatives. Each state delegation has one vote, and it takes 26 votes to win the presidency. Since most of the representatives are either Republican or Democrat, the third party candidate has the same chance as a snowball in hell. I'm not sure what the provisions are, if the state delegations wind up tied at 25 each.
The election of the vice-president gets tossed into the senate, where it's somewhat easier. Each senator has one vote, and it takes 51 votes to win the vice-presidency. If there is a 50-50 tie, the sitting vice president, in his capacity as the President of the Senate, casts the deciding vote.
As for blame, stupid voters, people who didn't vote, idiots who vote for a candidate that promises to give them "free shit," journalists with agendas that disguise their "puff pieces" on their favored candidates as "hard news," and the list goes on.
Compromise? I think a lot of politicians regard their opposite numbers as "evil incarnate," and adopt the position that you cannot compromise with evil. That about sums it up.
Drawscore

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:10 pm

> Kyle wrote: You'd need a complete overhaul of the American political system for 3 or more major parties to work out.

I don't doubt that for a moment, but I don't see our current system as working either. Do you?
As for the House of Represenatatives deciding the issue, they could hardly screw it up worse than the Supreme Court did in 2000! But I doubt they'd do any better either! Definitely not an appealing prospect. but neither is either four more years of Obama OR four years of ANY of the current presidential candidates running this year! If this is te best the USA can come up with, we're in deep s**t!!!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:20 pm

> drawscore wrote:I think we're stuck with the two party system. If we ran three or more candidates for president, and none got the 270 electoral votes needed for election, the election of the president is tossed into the House of Representatives. Each state delegation has one vote, and it takes 26 votes to win the presidency. Since most of the representatives are either Republican or Democrat, the third party candidate has the same chance as a snowball in hell. I'm not sure what the provisions are, if the state delegations wind up tied at 25 each.

The way things are right now, yes. But presumably if we had a fully three-party system, the third party would also have members in both houses of Congress as well... eventually. It would take time though,probably... people are slow to change. Especialy in the USA, which still hasn't even adopted the metric systemeven though virtually every other deeloped country has.
Sad to say, I agree that an alteration to our two-party system is unlikely until enough people get fed up with it and DO something about it, though I admit I can't imagine what the solution would be.
Any way you look at it, IMO this country is in deep trouble when it comes to having any prospects for good leadership anytime in the foreseeable future!!!
Last edited by Jason Toddman on Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: You idea of a president

Post by drawscore » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:44 pm

>>>The way things are right now, yes. But presumably if we had a fully three-party system, the third party would also have members in both houses of Congress as well... eventually.<<<
True. Then we could argue over whether it took a majority (26 or more) or a plurality (25 or less) of state delegations in the House, to elect a president. You could have something like 22-20-8. And then the fun begins, as the parties with the 22 and 20 delegations, go after the other eight with all kinds of promises. "Hey, drop your vote for John Smith, and vote for Jeff Jones, and John Smith can be Secretary of State in the Jeff Jones administration." All to get to that magic number of 26.
It would be interesting.
Drawscore