By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rpruett on 25 January 2016
Edit Thread
Soundwave said:
Rpruett said:

I don't believe he's liberal,  centrist - independent would be far closer (He's been a registered Republican since 88').   I believe that's why he would be a great choice.  He's not a divider (Obama has been a divider,  Cruz would be a divider too for example).

There isn't credentials for being president, but if there was any job on the planet that compares the most?  It probably would be the role in which Trump sits.  A multi-national, multi-billion, global conglomerate of businesses.   

 

Business world is easy to bring people together because there's a combining, overriding mutual force in business called -- gettin' paid. There's self interest involved. It doesn't work like that in politics. 


If you go a step more abstract,  that's exactly what politics are.  Gettin' paid is exactly the same as (Gettin' something that I want (Military support,  Cheap Oil, strategic help,  10 Battleships, Nuclear energy, etc, etc).   The manner in which you need to achieve that balance or agreement may differ, but the core concept remains the same and people are people.   You sell people, not ideas.  

 

Every politician is a divider and a unifier, you think everyone likes Clinton or Bush or even Reagan? Obama will be well thought of after his presidency because he's likable and nothing really major happened under his presidency. Most presidents are more fondly thought of post-presidency. 

And no being president is nothing like running a corporation. It would be much, much easier if it was like running a corporation. 

You don't sell anything to politics, politicans are on "their side" and that means they do everything they can to stop/derail the other side. That's the name of the game. 

Republicans have opposed positions from Obama that they supported like 10 years prior just because ... they can't be seen approving anything Obama. There's no arguing or rationalizing with people in politics in a lot of ways because they have their position (left or right) and they are never going to compromise on it. 

There's no "oh gee, you said that so eloquently, now I'm going to support your position".

The country changes from changing demographics and changing attitudes from the general public (ie: marijunana and gay marriage ... most Americans are more liberal on these issues today than 10-15 years ago, probably because a lot of the people against it probably also were old farts that died). But that isn't really a change due to any politican.  

You show a real lack of understanding with what it takes to succeed at the position. In business everyone has their side too,  as well as competitors and they aren't going "aww shucks,  I'll let you win too" .  You're going to need to do much better explaining if you want to pretend that they are vastly different.  If we were to draw a Vein diagram,  a multi billion,  global business would draw a broad amount of similarities to running a country. 

 

 What the fans of Blue team and Red team think of the President doesn't matter.  I agree that they will despise any candidate that isn't their own even making broad statements rooted in fallacy or exaggeration (This thread is a great example of that). 

 

Not every President is a divider.  Some unify the country more than others.  Obama has consistently pressed the conservative right and pushed racial undertones,  while also being far more of a Warhawk than what he advertised.   He has splintered the country and increased the party divide.