• 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!

Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

I heard that he said last week he was actually running.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Trump's allegedly making an announcement tomorrow and there is zero buzz about it. There's no buzz about it because he's already cried wolf too many times. Would be hilarious to see him tear into others during debates, but still have a difficult time seeing how he could justify a run. Has zero chance of winning with all his negatives and would undoubtably make some additional enemies along the way.
Click to expand...

Anyone thinking of voting for him should be forced to spend a few days at one of his reports.
 
Why is experience in government and politics not considered highly relevant to experience running governments, just like experience working in a particular industry is highly relevant to getting a leadership job in that industry?
 
Deacon923 said:
Why is experience in government and politics not considered highly relevant to experience running governments, just like experience working in a particular industry is highly relevant to getting a leadership job in that industry?
Click to expand...

The theory is that incompetence in business gets you fired while incompetence in government makes you well suited to climb the ladder. Not sure that Fiorina is a good example of success in business.

Successful business men/women rarely have the right attributes to campaign successfully where they may have the attributes to govern successfully.
 
knowell said:
The theory is that incompetence in business gets you fired while incompetence in government makes you well suited to climb the ladder. Not sure that Fiorina is a good example of success in business.

Successful business men/women rarely have the right attributes to campaign successfully where they may have the attributes to govern successfully.
Click to expand...

I guess that mindset explains why this is largely a GOP phenomenon.
 
Deacon923 said:
Why is experience in government and politics not considered highly relevant to experience running governments, just like experience working in a particular industry is highly relevant to getting a leadership job in that industry?
Click to expand...

I've wondered this at times. For example, why was Pat McCrory considered a good candidate for Governor? Yes he was Mayor of Charlotte, but North Carolina has a weak mayor system of government for municipalities. Wouldn't Curt Walton, longtime City Manager of Charlotte at the time, been better suited for that office on paper?

At least on the running government side, not the political side
 
Deacon923 said:
I guess that mindset explains why this is largely a GOP phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Yes. knowell and others overrate what it takes to run a business and underrate what it takes to run government (except for Reagan).
 
Mitt is "only" worth $250M and Dems were able to destroy him on his business record. Trump and Fiorina have a lot more skeletons in their closets and have much more checkered business records than Mitt. Neither makes it out of the primaries, but if it even appears they're gaining traction one of the other 12 dwarves will have to take them down.
 
PhDeac said:
Yes. knowell and others overrate what it takes to run a business and underrate what it takes to run government (except for Reagan).
Click to expand...

Are you speaking from your experience running a business? The theory is that bad business execs get weeded out through competition which does not happen in government. Government is probably harder to run well than a business, but market forces are not really prevalent in government. You can keep doing a poor job pretty much forever as long as you can run a solid campaign.
 
knowell said:
Are you speaking from your experience running a business? The theory is that bad business execs get weeded out through competition which does not happen in government. Government is probably harder to run well than a business, but market forces are not really prevalent in government. You can keep doing a poor job pretty much forever as long as you can run a solid campaign.
Click to expand...

meh, there are plenty of incompetent executives who keep their jobs
 
You can fire incompetent staffers and cabinet members just like you can with problem employees or suppliers, but you can't fire opponents in Congress or the Supreme Court.
 
knowell said:
Are you speaking from your experience running a business? The theory is that bad business execs get weeded out through competition which does not happen in government. Government is probably harder to run well than a business, but market forces are not really prevalent in government. You can keep doing a poor job pretty much forever as long as you can run a solid campaign.
Click to expand...

Market forces aren't prevalent in government?

Government gets blamed for market forces. Elected officials often don't get reelected when the economy is poor.

Government department heads often change with change in party leadership.
 
PhDeac said:
Market forces aren't prevalent in government?

Government gets blamed for market forces. Elected officials often don't get reelected when the economy is poor.

Government department heads often change with change in party leadership.
Click to expand...

A sociologist's interpretation of competitive free market forces.
 
Please state your disagreement. I'm sure you've never blamed an elected official for the state of the economy, right?

If a competitive free market forces result in a business closing in a city or a state and moving elsewhere, voters could decide to blame their elective officials for it. It's silly to say only business is subject to the free market. Everybody is in one way or another.

Even buying your argument, you make a case why it's ridiculous to claim somebody used to competitive free market principles would do well in the public sector. Being president isn't like a CEO trying to destroy the competition. At least it shouldn't be.
 
Last edited:
Republicans think Democrats vote for women and minorities based on race and gender.
Republicans vote for women and minorities based on who they can get people to vote for by race and gender.

It's sad.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
Republicans think Democrats vote for women and minorities based on race and gender.
Republicans vote for women and minorities based on who they can get people to vote for by race and gender.

It's sad.
Click to expand...

The reverse Jedi mind trick. Brilliant move.
 
PhDeac said:
Market forces aren't prevalent in government?

Government gets blamed for market forces. Elected officials often don't get reelected when the economy is poor.

Government department heads often change with change in party leadership.
Click to expand...

Please use your logic to explain congress' approval rating and party leadership' tenure.

Go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top