|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:55 am
I'm interested in exploring the idea of what makes for a good president. Rather than focusing on the man, I'm more concerned with focusing on the objectives we want a president to achieve during his (or her) time in office. I mean to approach this as a non-ideological benchmark objective too, i.e., these are the things we look for a president to achieve, and these are things we believe our particular ideologies are best at achieving. So, what makes for a good presidency?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:45 am
The president needs to have a strong platform. Though it's the congress's job to present laws, he still needs to sign them, a man with loose values would shake my vote.
The president needs to be logical. If North Korea launches a missile to hit Hawaii, he doesn't sit on his a** thinking, he comes with a quick, approachable, non-harmful way to deal with North Korea's offense.
The president needs to be public. Present the public with things, be with the public during different events, not lock himself up in a white house working his a** off. Vacations are necessary, family time is good, and public time is even better. A people person.
Diplomatic, and Compromising. S/He needs to be strong in his opinion, but be able to compromise with other countries and the public on different issues. There's no need to start a war right away when other methods of making peace can be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:52 pm
s/he needs to be honest- mean what s/he says
s/he shouldn't be sellout- no special interests groups or rich lobbyists
s/he should know their limit and not over step their bounderies
Rainbowfied Mouse pretty said the rest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:58 pm
A Minarchist to presenting new bills, and the ability to say no to addendum.
An ideal Statesman who I am not embarrassed to have representing my nation to the world.
A businessman when it comes to maintaining the Capitol.
Someone who is willing to allow citizens to make their own choices and run their own affairs with no government intervention.
Someone who does not think they know whats best for me.
A person who believes in a moral absolute and knows that s/he is not the final authority of right and might.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:03 pm
I think that he should be a good Christian man, as most of our nation is Christian, and that he should have good Christian morals, and help out our nation as it is starting to tumble downhill with moral decay like homosexuality, and abortion. But he should free the market, because communists don't allow full religious freedom, and that's where we're headed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:10 pm
Quote: I think that he should be a good Christian man, as most of our nation is Christian, and that he should have good Christian morals That's hardly had any bearing on the efficacy of any statesman. By all accounts Thomas Jefferson was an adulterer. Yet, he was one of the more brilliant and effective presidents we've ever had. In contrast, Grant lived a fairly Christian life and even abhorred profanity. He was dangerously incompetent and left numerous public offices to be plundered by cronies he trusted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:02 am
Magus Kathrine I think that he should be a good Christian man, as most of our nation is Christian, and that he should have good Christian morals, and help out our nation as it is starting to tumble downhill with moral decay like homosexuality, and abortion. Mmm, smells like theocracy. Just replace "Christian" with "Muslim" and you'd be saying "lets go bumb dem owpresive ragheads!" Quote: But he should free the market, because communists don't allow full religious freedom, and that's where we're headed. Stop with this "free markets lulz!" crap. 40 years ago you would have been a protectionist Dixiecrat and it's only after fundies of your ilk overran the GOP that you started adopting Reagenite rhetoric of "small guvernments!" You probably haven't an effing clue what "free the markets" actually means, you're just parroting rhetoric you heard from Rush Limbaugh or someone. And the US is no where near communism. It wasn't communism when public schools were introduced. It wasn't communism when public roads were built. It wasn't communism when national parks were set up. And by God, it still won't be communism if the US follows every other developed first world capitalist nation and introduces *gasp* universal healthcare. And none of this will affect freedom of religion, not that you care about such things because you advocate a Christian authoritarian state, not a free and pluralistic society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
