PDA

View Full Version : The best type of president


Ur Mom
04-28-2011, 04:54 AM
What do you think would make the qualities of a great president in general, and from what background would be best for them? I was thinking this morning about having an economist as president, I mean, a somewhat normal man can become a president, Reagan was a damn actor for instance


Wooster for president

Skrall
04-28-2011, 05:20 AM
The best type of President would be someone capable of making decisions that would benefit his country in a positively way. Someone, above all, with strong leadership skills. A person who serves as a role model for his and other countries.


http://iphonewallpaperclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Barack-Obama-Very-Cool-Pose-iPhone-Wallpaper-Download.jpg

I don't see the purpose of this image but, I'd like to point out that this is a pretty cool pose.

Ur Mom
04-28-2011, 07:16 AM
:lol: Presidents trying to be modern

Bacon
04-28-2011, 08:52 AM
An honest person who knows their own limitations.

Jutsu Junkie
04-28-2011, 10:15 AM
Someone who is effective, educated, ethical, and is capable of seeing through subterfuge and irrational arguments with ease. He must be good at forming and guiding personal and business relationships and seeing the difference between the two. He also must understand when and why he should release the hounds -- and how to call them back.

Wooster
04-28-2011, 10:25 AM
Actually pretty irrelevant. The president is bent to the people's will. I do not subscribe to the "great man" theory.

I suppose atrocious president like Carter can happen, but that was because the entire political class has it's head up it's butt after Nixon.

Judious
04-28-2011, 10:30 AM
A black one

Cloukora
04-28-2011, 11:16 AM
Chuck Norris

but in seriousness, one who has good intentions and knows what he's doing, and at least TRIES to keep his promises he mentioned while running

Danielle
04-28-2011, 11:43 AM
The road to hell is paved in good intentions; I don't believe there has been a president who hasn't had 'good intents'. I also don't think you can make a perfect president, might as well try for a benevolent dictator. FDR was pretty good, though he is the reason presidents are now limited to only two four year terms. >.>

Ur Mom
04-28-2011, 11:45 AM
Actually pretty irrelevant. The president is bent to the people's will. I do not subscribe to the "great man" theory.

I suppose atrocious president like Carter can happen, but that was because the entire political class has it's head up it's butt after Nixon.
"Atrocious" That's the first time I heard something negative in that way of Carter. Why?
The road to hell is paved in good intentions; I don't believe there has been a president who hasn't had 'good intents'. I also don't think you can make a perfect president, might as well try for a benevolent dictator. FDR was pretty good, though he is the reason presidents are now limited to only two four year terms. >.>
I don't know, I don't really count Franklin Peirce as a well intended president
Saying bush here would be too generic and lead to controversy depending on the people around

Danielle
04-28-2011, 11:50 AM
I meant merely that I don't believe any of them wished to kill America.

Wooster
04-28-2011, 11:57 AM
"Atrocious" That's the first time I heard something negative in that way of Carter. Why?

You are kidding right? :lol:

Ur Mom
04-28-2011, 12:51 PM
You are kidding right? :lol:
Well, I live in Georgia, the land of Undead, so yeah, that has something with it :lol:

Danielle
04-28-2011, 01:04 PM
Hm they must like Carter in Georgia then. o.o

Ur Mom
04-28-2011, 01:14 PM
/researched
So basically you say that because of his COMPLETE help to the 70's inflation right?
Hm they must like Carter in Georgia then. o.o
Carter was the Senate of Georgia for 2 terms and governor for 1, no duh :geek:

Jutsu Junkie
04-28-2011, 09:59 PM
Actually pretty irrelevant. The president is bent to the people's will. I do not subscribe to the "great man" theory.

I suppose atrocious president like Carter can happen, but that was because the entire political class has it's head up it's butt after Nixon.

I completely disagree. First of all, if an "atrocious president" can happen, so can a great one. Second, you seem to discount the numerous examples of leaders making tough decisions and changing the world. Abraham Lincoln, for one. You can't tell me that the North was so happy to shed blood over people they considered subhumans; the only reason they went along is because they didn't need slave labor anymore. But they hated the idea of the war, in the main. He did it anyway, won, and changed the world. And anyway, even if they do bend to the will of the people more often than not (not necessarily a bad thing to begin with), there's doing so effectively and botching the job. The kind of person sitting in the Oval Office actually makes a difference.

puppetmasterpossession
04-28-2011, 10:06 PM
I think that the best president would be one that just kills all the bad guys by himself...Just has like super powers and goes and kills all the bad people....

Wooster for President

Ino's Girl
04-28-2011, 10:09 PM
The best type is someone like Paris Hilton

Bacon
04-28-2011, 10:15 PM
I completely disagree. First of all, if an "atrocious president" can happen, so can a great one. Second, you seem to discount the numerous examples of leaders making tough decisions and changing the world. Abraham Lincoln, for one. You can't tell me that the North was so happy to shed blood over people they considered subhumans; the only reason they went along is because they didn't need slave labor anymore. But they hated the idea of the war, in the main. He did it anyway, won, and changed the world. And anyway, even if they do bend to the will of the people more often than not (not necessarily a bad thing to begin with), there's doing so effectively and botching the job. The kind of person sitting in the Oval Office actually makes a difference.
Being persuasive and being able to rally the support of people, is not the same thing as making decisions independently. The President is legally powerless without senate and Congressional approval in many instances, which include war and creating law. He changed the world because he was charismatic, something that any "competent" president should recognize. As for the people are concerned, you're forgetting the fact that not all of them are the same. People were growing more liberal, even if was at a snail's pace. Besides that, I was under the impression that the preserving the union was the chief concern.

Note:Competant doesn't mean good, because Hitler recognized this. :3

Jutsu Junkie
04-29-2011, 12:48 AM
Being persuasive and being able to rally the support of people, is not the same thing as making decisions independently. The President is legally powerless without senate and Congressional approval in many instances, which include war and creating law. He changed the world because he was charismatic, something that any "competent" president should recognize. As for the people are concerned, you're forgetting the fact that not all of them are the same. People were growing more liberal, even if was at a snail's pace. Besides that, I was under the impression that the preserving the union was the chief concern.

Note:Competant doesn't mean good, because Hitler recognized this. :3

My point wasn't that the man was a dictator. I was responding to Wooster's notion that presidents only bend to the popular will, which isn't true. It's true that Lincoln's chief concern was the preservation of the Union, but the fact of the matter is that the war was over slavery. Without slavery, preserving the Union through force wouldn't have been necessary. Admittedly there were other issues (though they were all tied to slavery), but none of them were popularly thought to be causes for war at the time by most folks. Had there been a 24 hour news cycle back then, things may have turned out differently.

As far as making war, the president is the head of his party, and Lincolns Republicans controlled the Congress (because the representatives from the other party belonged to secessionist states). Also, federalism was central to their views, so he was never going to get much resistance from them. That doesn't make fighting the South popular, only circumstantially viable.

Bacon
04-29-2011, 10:19 AM
I'm not understanding your point, is it semantics or something? When a president makes a proposal, the majority of his party is bound to support him. With all the other facts to consider, such as their focus on federalism; that doesn't refute what Wooster said. All it means is that more than half of congress agreed and voted along party lines.