• 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

Liquid Karma said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. I don't think it's crossing the line of decency to ask if someone's preference for a candidate with a specific set of work experiences is simply the desire to have a candidate with similar values. It is crossing the line of decency to call somebody racist for supporting a candidate with similar values.
 
I think Townie just said it more eloquently than I ever could have.
 
TownieDeac said:
I thought you were both just being intentionally reductive for effect.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's reductive to say someone's work experience reflects their values. LK sees those work experiences as attractive because they reflect his values. I think even he agrees that running a small business and military experience don't make someone empirically more qualified to be president.
 
Tell me again about the greatness of Sarah Palin, Skins.
 
Executive work experience is definitely important. By the time you get to run a large company or run a state effectively, there are a myriad of things you had to learn (and maybe fail at).

There are a ton of qualities that transfer from successful executive to president. There are a lot of non-executive jobs where you can be very successful but that do not either prepare one for being president or expose the personal weaknesses that would make a person a weak president.

You can succeed without executive experience, it is just less likely.

As much as people like to blame gridlock on congress, the more successful presidents tend to be less ideological and more willing to compromise a portion of their agenda to achieve the rest of it.
 
It's hard to compare the current climate with previous climates in my opinion. Too different and unquestionably more polarized than at any point over the past 50+ years (at least) according to basically any political scientists. It's basically what Townie said: stick to your guns and you're labeled as not leading, seek to do something vs. congress and now you're ignoring the democratic process.

I think while there are things to be learned from being an executive compared to being president that the two are pretty different. If you ran a country like a business in a capitalistic society you would basically remove all social welfare programs up to the point where it was simply costing too much not to have a safety net.
 
An inexperienced ideologue? Finally!

i6ig6w.gif
 
PhDeac said:
I don't think it's reductive to say someone's work experience reflects their values. LK sees those work experiences as attractive because they reflect his values. I think even he agrees that running a small business and military experience don't make someone empirically more qualified to be president. That doesn't mean that person might not be successful at it, but I'd back on a person with a background in academia being better at it.
Click to expand...

That's not a proper representation of my position. I absolutely think running a small business and military service make someone more qualified to be president than someone who lacks those experiences.

Would someone with no background in academia be qualified to chair your sociology department? That doesn't mean that person would not be successful, but I'd bank on someone with a background in academia for the position over the unqualified person.
 
ChrisL68 said:
You aren't seriously suggesting that Obama was an ideologue are you?
Click to expand...

Did you really detect a lighthearted tone in a post featuring a dancing Jean Claude Van-Damme?

I think Elizabeth Warren might be the one way to elect Jeb Bush President of the United States. Not sure I can think of a second way. I would not put it past 2014 Dems to forge the path for a third Bush Presidency. That is in-Damme conceivable to think of happening at the conclusion of the second term of not-Bush.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
It's hard to compare the current climate with previous climates in my opinion. Too different and unquestionably more polarized than at any point over the past 50+ years (at least) according to basically any political scientists. It's basically what Townie said: stick to your guns and you're labeled as not leading, seek to do something vs. congress and now you're ignoring the democratic process.

I think while there are things to be learned from being an executive compared to being president that the two are pretty different. If you ran a country like a business in a capitalistic society you would basically remove all social welfare programs up to the point where it was simply costing too much not to have a safety net.
Click to expand...

All good points. I'd counter with the thought that it's a lot easier to champion job creation and growth for the middle class when you've actually gone out and run a successful business instead of just writing about it. It lends a bit more credibility to the candidate in my eyes.
 
ChrisL68 said:
You aren't seriously suggesting that Obama was an ideologue are you?
Click to expand...

More than most, less than some. Bill Clinton is the perfect example of someone who was not an ideologue. He did an about face after the rejection of Hillary Care. He governed as a centrist if not a republican after that. I think Obama has certain things that he is very ideological about, such as healthcare and expanding the social safety net. He is less ideological than a lot of the posters on this site, but he is over 50 and time moderates the views of most of us.
 
RChildress107 said:
Just as true
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but congress is usually dysfunctional anyway and you will likely never get good leadership from 500 people that dislike each other, whereas, with a president, at least you have a shot at leadership.
 
Liquid Karma said:
That's not a proper representation of my position. I absolutely think running a small business and military service make someone more qualified to be president than someone who lacks those experiences.

Would someone with no background in academia be qualified to chair your sociology department? That doesn't mean that person would not be successful, but I'd bank on someone with a background in academia for the position over the unqualified person.
Click to expand...

That reflects the extent to which you value small business and military service over other ways of gaining leadership experience such as being a union head, running a PAC, being president of a university, or a chairing a non-profit among other things.

I think business experience does not automatic translate to government in which everyone has vastly different goals and an executive can't simply hiring and fire those who are causing him trouble within the organization.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top