Hi masondixon!

> But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise.

So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis?

Would it be fair then to say that because doctors have failed to cure patients, that we should stop having doctors treat the sick? Or that because people with drivers licenses have crashed cars, that we should allow people without them to drive cars?

> So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis?

Nope. Only the fact that a "statesman" doesn't imply good foreign policy.

Trump does imply more uncertainty though I would say.

We will see. Its worth trying out. Unless you think he will launch the nukes. Which is a big part of the liberal narrative.

Ok - thanks for clarifying.

I don't think that this assertion strengthens an argument that voting for Trump is better than voting for any other candidate.

I would argue that someone who does not have experience in public office should not be considered a viable candidate for president of the United States, much as I believe that someone who has not driven a car before should not be considered to be a driver in the Indianapolis 500 race. I don't think it's "worth trying out" someone who has never practiced a surgery to do open heart surgery on me.

I believe that a certain level of experience and track record in governance is a reasonable, basic criteria for the highest elected office in the United States. An example would be a governorship, term in congress, or a term a state legislature, something that provides a record of voting on issues that I care about, for instance - or displays some kind of governance style. Trump fails to meet this criteria.

It sounds like you and I agree that Trump implies more uncertainty, the difference in our perspectives is that you are comfortable with the uncertainty and I am not.

Is that a fair characterization of our positions based on this limited conversation?

The analogy you present, Public office : no experience as a public official :: doctor :: no experience as a doctor

I don't find it very accurate.

It might be more accurate to say public executive : corporate executive :: public doctor : doctor with a private practice

There are plenty of real concerns that arise from the accurate version, enough that here is no need to impose an inaccurate analogy to spawn more concern than is already warranted. But the one you proposed conveniently overlooks the executive nature that is in common between Trump's previous roles and the role of a president. Much of the support for Trump has come from this notion that the polite "statesmen" of recent administrations have succeeded with manners and managing their public personas, but have failed as executives, and that the populace has suffered as a result of their executive failures. This was the driving rhetoric behind the Trump campaign. It was hatred, sure, but hatred for incompetence. And this is the criticism that the left failed to effectively address. It is the reason why they lost.

You can mask over mistakes by applying inaccurate analogies, but you won't win over your critics in doing so. In politics, that's what matters. This election cycle we found out just how much.

Well said.

Trump is able to say things that others cannot. He can speak freely.

In corporate politics, the biggest killer is people not being able to speak openly which creates a toxic back stabbing atmosphere.

You can see this in the Clinton Foundation from the leaked emails.

OK, I'll accept that my analogy isn't very good.

So your argument is that someone who is a good private executive will also be a good public executive?

Let's accept that premise as given.

Is Donald Trump a good private executive?

> does not have experience in public office

Reagan didn't.

They can just surround themselves with people who know.

I think its good though. The longer you spend in politics, the more favours you owe people. Political capital. Don't you get excited at the prospect of a leader not beholden to any special interests at all?

> Is that a fair characterization of our positions based on this limited conversation?

In terms of risk/reward, I see higher risk and higher reward. You see higher risk and no change in reward.

I think it is a once in a lifetime opporuntity to have someone not beholden to special interests, and doesn't owe any favours.

Reagan did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Early_political_...

And then he became governor of California before becoming president.

Well i'll be...thanks!

> Don't you get excited at the prospect of a leader not beholden to any special interests at all?

On paper that does sound exciting, but it's not something that I want at any cost. In specific, I don't want it badly enough to elect Donald Trump as president.

What are the top 3 reasons why you dislike Trump so much? And for each of them - can you think of reasons why Trump supporters don't feel the same?

> Its worth trying out.

I think this sums most of it up. People think things are getting worse and their lives very likely are, so why not try something different? It's the reason for most "unforeseen" results for ultrarightwing parties in Europe, I imagine. People want "someone who'll stir the pot".

I've never felt like that, but I can understand the sentiment, after hearing it so many times.

> People want "someone who'll stir the pot".

I think Europe is stirring the pot right now. Zero border control. Horrific terrorist attacks. Its genuinely scary.

Its more a question of how can it get worse?

How willing you are to take a chance depends on how desperate you are.

Here's an alternative way to think about "desperation" (not saying this is necessarily the right way).

We have a lot of people in this country who are struggling financially. Their choice of geographic location, education, and skills (things they choose) aren't lining up with the 2016 economy (which they didn't choose). They voted Republican.

We also have a lot of people who are struggling socially and financially. They were born Mexican, Muslim, or homosexual (things they are) and are scared because other people want to deport them, jail them, or kick them out of the military. They voted Democrat.

Now, the Democrats offered to work with the Republicans to give them more choices and options. The Republicans said, "No way. We're staying put and rolling the dice with your civil rights."

Is it fair that a lot of people might feel like their freedom got sold out this week?

> We also have a lot of people who are struggling socially and financially. They were born Mexican, Muslim, or homosexual (things they are) and are scared because other people want to deport them, jail them, or kick them out of the military. They voted Democrat.

They only need to be scared if they are Mexican and here illegally.

Everyone else is being needlessly scared by the media and DNC.

What evidence helps you to feel so sure of that?

I'd like to know, because I'd like to feel as you do.

I can assure you that Trump and his supporters are not the racist, xenophobes that the media has told you.

Journey over to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/. We have great people. You will not find xenophobia or racism there.

As a leftist living outside of America. The thing is that some of us see these "statesmen" as the origin of the crisis.

As a leftist, I wouldn't want someone like Hillary's personal friend plunging my country into chaos and give power to a guy who would make Trump seem like Mother Theresa just because the people choose to elect an actual left wing candidate. I know this wasn't a relevant question to americans, not even to the "tolerant" and "progressive" Clinton supporters.

So yeah, personally, I could be wrong, but I'll take a bet that things could be different with the one that at least doesn't seem like a "statesman".

Hi prairiedogg, Well this thread is basically nitpicking each other. Let me tell you one thing. If you are a citizen of USA, you could run for president and be one as long as you are win a majority in a majority of states. Now, if you are interested in politics you, like me, would be following political decisions from a variety of sources and try to analyze it(see if its truth and try to understand if its fair to the citizens and such). You don't have to necessarily be a traditional politician/statesman(sad thing is most traditional politicians only cares about themselves and is more interested in coming across as having done something. Ideally they would do nothing and just get credit for doing all the good). My argument is you are as good as any statesman so long as you have a working brain. Be rational, have a willingness to find a solution for general problems faced by having conversation affected and actually do what is necessary to correct it. Make a level playing field for everyone so that everyone can actually live a good life instead of letting greed run amok. I do not like career politicians who are in politics just so in hopes of wielding power than to actually use it responsibly, but no, most "statesman" have no willings to study problems and find solutions, and pays a lobbyist to find a solution who has no incentives to come up with even a remotely correct solution. They do that because people are not paying much attention to what they do and they get away with it as injustices done to them would be mostly forgotten/drowned within a week in all the noise.

Hi rubberstamp!

I disagree that this thread is "just nitpicking each other" - I think it's been both educational and civil. For instance, when masondixon learned that Reagan had a political career before his presidency, masondixon thanked dbmikus for pointing it out. It's hard to find that level of candor on an internet discussion board - and masondixon seemed to want a genuine dialog that was free of the ad-hominem attacks that he or she had apparently been experiencing on other sites.

In regards to your "argument", I don't find it convincing:

> My argument is you are as good as any statesman so long as you have a working brain.

I disagree. My brain works reasonably well, but I don't consider myself fit to fill the office of the presidency - for a wide variety of reasons. I have no understanding of large portions of the world or even of the United States itself. I don't know how economics works on a macro scale. Just as I would never hire a person whose brain worked well, but had never written a line of code to fill the most important engineering role in my company, I would never say that just because my brain worked well, that I would be a good statesman or a good choice for president of the United States.

What I meant by 'as long as you have a working brain' is that "you are competent as long as you are willing to do rational analysis on your own and come to conclusions". You are perfectly fit for the office of president so long as you are willing to learn. You do not have any inherent limitation. Even most of the economists do not know what they are talking about. Most mainstream economic theories are not even proven to to be correct. Its just like anyone willing enough to learn to code can eventually write beautiful and accurate code so long as they remain enthusiastic learners.

> It's hard to find that level of candor on an internet discussion board

:'( It honestly makes me emotional to hear this as I realise how rare a dialog like this really is.

Now I'm getting the feels masondixon - thanks for being so open to a discussion.

As a leftist living outside of America. The thing is that some of us see these "statesmen" as the origin of the crisis.

As a leftist, I wouldn't want someone like Hillary's personal friend plunging my country into chaos and give power to a guy who would make Trump seem like Mother Theresa just because the people choose to elect an actual left wing candidate. I know this wasn't a relevant question to americans, not even to the "tolerant" and "progressive" Clinton supporters.

So yeah, personally, I could be wrong, but I'll take a bet with the one that at least doesn't seem like a statesman.

> failed to avoid crisis

"failed to avoid" starting a war?

Hi tomp!

I was trying to summarize masondixon's stated points about the negative effect electing "statesmen" have had. masondixon listed:

- two wars

- Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS

- Syria is a humanitarian nightmare

- we had a huge financial crash

- and terrorism is on the rise

I thought "crisis" could fairly characterize any one of these, but what I consider the substance of my response was what followed, when I asked masondixon to clarify his or her logical argument and extended it by analogy to other common points of public concern, like medicine and transportation safety.

I think you're correct to point out that "starting a war" and "avoiding crisis" are substantively different and accept (what I perceive to be) your criticism.

> But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise.

There are factors in play here beyond the background of the US president; Global politics, foreign leaders, policies in other countries, civilian actions, etc. To say that the US president being a "statesman" caused all of those things is a massive leap in logic.

https://xkcd.com/552/

> To say that the US president being a "statesman" caused all of those things is a massive leap in logic.

I am saying that "being a statesmen" doesn't always cause good foreign policy.