• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

OFFICIAL Elizabeth Warren is awesome thread

12 years from now Tom Cotton will run for President on a platform of restricting the franchise and various other red state elitisms and LK will be like "Welp he served; gotta vote for him"
 
DeaconSig said:
I think trying to value "experience" in a presidential election is pointless. In a race for a legislative seat? Sure. You might think that a doctor is better qualified to represent your interests that a trust fund baby, or that a head of a non-profit is a better bet for you than a retired auto worker. But for President of the United States of America? There is no experience that qualifies you for that position. There is nothing comparable.

I also don't understand the desire to have someone with a military background. Some of the worst presidents this country has had over its existence were military leaders. Not to mention that I think the armed forces do a pretty good job of creating their own leaders- the President only needs to respect the military and be able to have an intelligent discussion with military leaders. Its not like the President is going to lead a charge up a hill or pilot a drone.

Figure out who best represents your interests (or, perhaps more accurately, least represents the things you hate). Try to figure out the amorphous "leadership" qualities that might allow a certain candidate to better accomplish things once in office. But thinking that the fact a guy ran GE for 15 years would make him a good President, or believing that a full-bird colonel somehow makes one more qualified to be President than anyone else just doesn't seem to add up.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty in line with this way of thinking when it comes to my vote.


LK had a good point that being in the military a long time probably helps a person have that "leadership" quality that we are all looking for in our President. Not nearly a requisite for me, but along these lines I would have considered McCain before he started cow-towing to the extreme right and picked that moronic Palin to be his running mate. McCain in 2000 would have gotten my vote over Gore.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
12 years from now Tom Cotton will run for President on a platform of restricting the franchise and various other red state elitisms and LK will be like "Welp he served; gotta vote for him"
Click to expand...

You distilled my entire post down to that? Impressive.
 
Liquid Karma said:
You distilled my entire post down to that? Impressive.
Click to expand...

Nah just joshing.

I have a better case that executive experience is less important when most nominations will more or less be automatically determined by party affiliation (see all the Clintonites in Obama's first term) but I don't feel like making a solid argument on that today.

But really I actually enjoyed your post and respect the thinking even if I don't share it.
 
LK, could you boil down your post to simply wanting to support a candidate who shares the same values as you?
 
It does all come down to policy. If you think America should be reshaped as a European style social capitalism society but with more leftist anti-business tax policy, then Liz Warren is your gal.

I will say that she is very good at politics and I think she believes what she says, so I can respect that. And having intelligent voices on the left is good for the country. And if she somehow won the Presidency, the gridlock in congress would force her to compromise so much that it wouldn't be the worst thing. But its highly unlikely I would vote for her unless the alternative was less appealing.
 
PhDeac said:
LK, could you boil down your post to simply wanting to support a candidate who shares the same values as you?
Click to expand...


Can you boil your Obama vote down to simply voting for him because he is black (apologies to Saneff)?

I think in the abstract most of us identify with the candidate who most reflects our values, so yes you could certainly over simplify my post down to that. Inquiring whether a person is qualified be president can be a biased value based judgement, and at the same time be an independent observation. Neither you or I are qualified to be president, but that has nothing to do with our values aligning with potential voters.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Can you boil your Obama vote down to simply voting for him because he is black (apologies to Saneff)?

I think in the abstract most of us identify with the candidate who most reflects our values, so yes you could certainly over simplify my post down to that. Inquiring whether a person is qualified be president can be a biased value based judgement, and at the same time be an independent observation. Neither you or I are qualified to be president, but that has nothing to do with our values aligning with potential voters.
Click to expand...

You could have just said that. Making a racially inflammatory post was unnecessary.
 
PhDeac said:
You could have just said that. Making a racially inflammatory post was unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Begging your pardon #undepheated, but I've found your tone towards me on this thread to be condescending on multiple occasions, and I'm going to respond in kind.

If you want to distill my point of view down to simplistic identity politics, don't get ruffled if I do the same to you.
 
I don't think tying experience to the presidency really matters that much. Also "leadership" i find to generally just be a subjective term that can be maneuvered whichever way a party wants to. If you don't have any concrete complaints and things aren't getting done just say the president hasn't "led." Even if it's Congress being obstinate the blame falls on the president as well. Fare thee well separation of powers I guess. Congress can't pass a budget or reach an agreement on even the most basic topic, probably the president's fault for failing to meet this ambiguous leadership standard.

I'm pretty convinced that there is a serious disconnect between the powers of the president and the powers the American people believe they have.
 
Other thing, LK, I actually share some of your reservations on Warren. She's definitely more prepared for congress than the White House. I absolutely do not think she would win the primary (<10% chance if we're being probabilistic). But Warren should run anyways because I think she'd threaten to clean up on union endorsements and can force HRC into some promises that she otherwise wouldn't make.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't think tying experience to the presidency really matters that much. Also "leadership" i find to generally just be a subjective term that can be maneuvered whichever way a party wants to. If you don't have any concrete complaints and things aren't getting done just say the president hasn't "led." Even if it's Congress being obstinate the blame falls on the president as well. Fare thee well separation of powers I guess. Congress can't pass a budget or reach an agreement on even the most basic topic, probably the president's fault for failing to meet this ambiguous leadership standard.

I'm pretty convinced that there is a serious disconnect between the powers of the president and the powers the American people believe they have.
Click to expand...

I think you make a good point in your first paragraph. Experience is obviously subjective. Then again, aren't most assessments of political candidates?
 
Liquid Karma said:
Begging your pardon #undepheated, but I've found your tone towards me on this thread to be condescending on multiple occasions, and I'm going to respond in kind.

If you want to distill my point of view down to simplastic identity politics, don't get ruffled if I do the same to you.
Click to expand...

How is sharing the same values "simplastic identity politics"? Saying people vote for someone with attractive personal experiences is not the same as saying someone only votes for someone of their own race. You turned a simple discussion into a racial argument for no reason. The worst part about this is that you basically agreed that work experience wasn't much of a factor at all.
 
Liquid Karma said:
I think you make a good point in your first paragraph. Experience is obviously subjective. Then again, aren't most assessments of political candidates?
Click to expand...

Yes. You seemed to think experience was concrete. Nobody is experienced enough to be president. We can't evaluate how somebody will do as president because we have no idea what someone will have to deal with as president. Bush wasn't elected to deal with 9/11, but that's what he had to do.

I find the idea of work experience as a factor to be particularly silly because anybody with enough political experience to be "qualified" be president hasn't had that work experience in decades.
 
Liquid Karma said:
I think you make a good point in your first paragraph. Experience is obviously subjective. Then again, aren't most assessments of political candidates?
Click to expand...

Yeah you definitely can but at least with issue voting you would probably have evidence f their beliefs (even if they haven't been in office before to cast votes they have probably been in business somewhere or taught somewhere that their views on important topics are known). Leadership seems to just be a catch all in politics for if things have been accomplished while you're in office or not.

I'm too young to remember a lot of presidencies but how new is this "lacks leadership" commentary for a president? Did the GOP say the same thing about Clinton? Did the Dems say it about GHWB or GWB? I have a few thoughts about where this leadership language comes from but want to know if it has been a prominent criticism from the opposing party over the years or not first.
 
Bush "had to deal with 9/11" because he failed. And he had a record of failure. Because he was and is a failure. LK's heuristic would have worked great on W.
 
My public apology if that comment towards Ph offended anyone, especially him. Was intended to be a sarcastic response to a line of questioning that I found rather aggravating and crossed the line of decency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top