I understand what you are saying here. He struggles to speak eloquently, and does not have a statesman-like persona. He is no traditional president.
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.
Trump opposed the war (was not a strong supporter before, and immediately after was certainly opposed to it).
No one likes him and he doesn't owe favours to anyone. The bankers, the lobbyists, the establishment. Everything that we would agree is wrong with the country.
And he did not run on a conservative platform of religion - which has nudged the entire Republican party to the left.
And he use to be a Democrat.
There will never be another candidate like him. But sadly no one can look past the ad-hominem character attacks.
> 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?
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.
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?
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.
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".
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.
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" starting a war?
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.
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.
I am saying that "being a statesmen" doesn't always cause good foreign policy.
