What makes a good President?

[ceecee]

That seems like a fair move. I always wonder since we have to go through such rigorous background checks to get a good job, how come it seems these politicians can do things and never be held accountable? And if it arises during the campaign, as said, a suspension until a verdict would be justified. That is fair for everyone. Of course if you put that into play, I don't think we would have Trump OR Hillary...which probably would've left us a better vote anyway...

Because voters are uninformed, we've had years and years of people thinking being non-political is some kind of virtue and the media has fucked up the entire process of running for office to the point no one worth running wants to do it. And the politicians make all the rules, of course those rules benefit them.

 

[anticlimatic]

Who knows. People rewrite history to suit their contemporary narratives so there is no objective way to tell, even in the long run.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Because voters are uninformed, we've had years and years of people thinking being non-political is some kind of virtue and the media has fucked up the entire process of running for office to the point no one worth running wants to do it. And the politicians make all the rules, of course those rules benefit them.

This is what I call "privatization of democracy". Make it so that only certain groups have interest or even use of it.


In a way that is the point of the modern media: to make it gross as much as possible. So that most stay away and leave the game to partisan armies.
The only flaw is that on the long run this is pushing everything towards open revolution.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Abolish the senate.

Well, it was created with the same rationale as the Electoral College, so I could get behind that.

 

[ygolo]

I found a list I liked:
What Great Leaders Have In Common
1. Resilience
2. Transparency
3. Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
4. Passion
5. Empathy
6. Empowerment
7. Open-minded
8. Patience
9. Diplomacy
10. Initiative for action
11. Humility
12. Influence
13. Purpose
14. Vision
15. Trust
16. Integrity
17. Problem Solving
18. Perspective
19. Listening
20. Ownership / Accountability
21. Motivation

 

[Oaky]

A good president... there are a few thoughts surrounding this. Assuming a president is meant to 'lead' a country, there should be a few things

1. The goal:
Peace and harmony?
Conservation of values?
Conservation of power?
Progression of values?
Progression of civilization (and technology)?

The moment you answer the question of what the goal is is the moment you understand what would make a good president. As commonly, each country tends to lean towards one goal or another, and the president/prime minister, etc, has a role to play to try and procure or conserve it.

2. The president's characteristics:
Along the lines of the goal, the president should present the qualities that work to achieve the goal. Some general traits should however be consistent.
- Charisma: To retain public confidence and relations
- Wisdom: To protect, and prevent risk
- Intellect: To understand how to solve the problems and what must be done
- Fearless and/or bravery: To take action

...sorry, I've lost my train of thought. Hope what I've provided at least gives some insight into my general point

 

[tinker683]

For those who have participated:
In your opinion, say someone does not meet these requires, should a new easier process of impeachment be involved for the President? Should it be easier to "impeach" ill-acting lower level authorities as well?

I think the process itself is fine. The Founders anticipated that bad faith actors would be voted out. They did not anticipate however an idiotic and apathetic general public.

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

As is the king, so are the subjects.

 

[Vendrah]

I think a lot of what people said here is great and Im going to be, perhaps, a little bit repetitive. And I think the standards here will be quite high.

1) Integrity: For real, integrity also involves authenticity, not lying and deceiving, keeping true to your own promises. This includes being ethical, but do not necessarily includes moral. Moralism with no integrity is BS. And this eliminates like 70-80% of politicians around the world and 90-95% of Brazilian ones.
2) Good at critical thinking: Having an ability to distinguish, do triage of information, surpass eventual manipulations, misreadings and misinformation. And many critical thinking traits, you can google about it. Not only have a good critical thinking, but use it widely, one of the reasons I hardly trust anyone too religious, they turn critical thinking off for religious subjects. Good critical thinking avoids the person of being completely blind about ideology or do the annoying bad intentioned fruitpickings.
3) Intelligence: As several mentioned, doesnt need to be Albert Einstein, but at least be in the first 20-30% top world and top country IQ is not too much to ask.
4) "Good-will": Someone, as [MENTION=8485]tinker683[/MENTION] indirectly mentioned, actually really cares and really cares about a little of everything in the country (and using critical thinking and intelligence to know what to prioritize and when). Carelessness perhaps is welcome for military, highly introverted people and perhaps people on a bad situation, but in no way for a president in any place.
4.1) Includes some empathy as well, a minimal decent empathy, but not way too much empathy, because excessive empathy can be a pain.
5) Diplomacy and personal choosing: As someone mentioned in the thread, being good at picking who works with you, the sub-president, ministers, etc... is important and being reasonable at negotiating, but not way too much good at diplomacy to the point of using manipulation or compromising any of the points I had said above.

I may miss a point or two, but thats in general. Anyway, in overall, Im asking quite much, I know.

 

[The Cat]

 

[ceecee]

At least President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho had the self-awareness to hand things over to the smarter person. Terry Crews, the person, is delightful.

 

[The Cat]

At least President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho had the self-awareness to hand things over to the smarter person. Terry Crews, the person, is delightful.

Yeah, I was thinking that exact thing earlier on both points.

I think Terry Cruise the person would actually be a pretty awesome presidential candidate.

 

[The Cat]

The ability to delegate is a thing a president should also be able to do. His pride should come after the well being of the people he claims to work for.

 

[Red Memories]

Well, it was created with the same rationale as the Electoral College, so I could get behind that.

I got to say, I dislike the push to eliminate the electoral college just because people disliked election results.

The idea of the electoral college came because they did not want states to go unheard. With states with larger populations, if we went strictly by popular vote, they would always win and therefore they would always have dominance in what happens in America. The electoral college is there to prevent this type of rule, allowing smaller states, agree with them or not, to have a say in America too. While I dislike Trump, I found it appalling also how many people tried to petition for people within their electoral college to go against the people's vote. Maybe that is just me though. I don't like the idea of strictly big states deciding what all us little states have to believe in...

 

[Red Memories]

I think a lot of what people said here is great and Im going to be, perhaps, a little bit repetitive. And I think the standards here will be quite high.

1) Integrity: For real, integrity also involves authenticity, not lying and deceiving, keeping true to your own promises. This includes being ethical, but do not necessarily includes moral. Moralism with no integrity is BS. And this eliminates like 70-80% of politicians around the world and 90-95% of Brazilian ones.
2) Good at critical thinking: Having an ability to distinguish, do triage of information, surpass eventual manipulations, misreadings and misinformation. And many critical thinking traits, you can google about it. Not only have a good critical thinking, but use it widely, one of the reasons I hardly trust anyone too religious, they turn critical thinking off for religious subjects. Good critical thinking avoids the person of being completely blind about ideology or do the annoying bad intentioned fruitpickings.
3) Intelligence: As several mentioned, doesnt need to be Albert Einstein, but at least be in the first 20-30% top world and top country IQ is not too much to ask.
4) "Good-will": Someone, as [MENTION=8485]tinker683[/MENTION] indirectly mentioned, actually really cares and really cares about a little of everything in the country (and using critical thinking and intelligence to know what to prioritize and when). Carelessness perhaps is welcome for military, highly introverted people and perhaps people on a bad situation, but in no way for a president in any place.
4.1) Includes some empathy as well, a minimal decent empathy, but not way too much empathy, because excessive empathy can be a pain.
5) Diplomacy and personal choosing: As someone mentioned in the thread, being good at picking who works with you, the sub-president, ministers, etc... is important and being reasonable at negotiating, but not way too much good at diplomacy to the point of using manipulation or compromising any of the points I had said above.

I may miss a point or two, but thats in general. Anyway, in overall, Im asking quite much, I know.

I find it sad we have to assume this is in fact asking for a lot. These should be basic criterias…

 

[Hermit of the Forest]

Kindly keep discussion on topic, and refrain from spats and bickering.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I got to say, I dislike the push to eliminate the electoral college just because people disliked election results.

The idea of the electoral college came because they did not want states to go unheard. With states with larger populations, if we went strictly by popular vote, they would always win and therefore they would always have dominance in what happens in America. The electoral college is there to prevent this type of rule, allowing smaller states, agree with them or not, to have a say in America too. While I dislike Trump, I found it appalling also how many people tried to petition for people within their electoral college to go against the people's vote. Maybe that is just me though. I don't like the idea of strictly big states deciding what all us little states have to believe in...

In practice, though, it means that one person doesn't equal one vote.

Also, in your experience, under the electoral college, do presidential candidates typically devote a lot of attention to Idaho? I would expect not, since it doesn't have many votes in the electoral college.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I got to say, I dislike the push to eliminate the electoral college just because people disliked election results.

The idea of the electoral college came because they did not want states to go unheard. With states with larger populations, if we went strictly by popular vote, they would always win and therefore they would always have dominance in what happens in America. The electoral college is there to prevent this type of rule, allowing smaller states, agree with them or not, to have a say in America too. While I dislike Trump, I found it appalling also how many people tried to petition for people within their electoral college to go against the people's vote. Maybe that is just me though. I don't like the idea of strictly big states deciding what all us little states have to believe in...

I am sorry but this is very questionable logic.


What electoral collage does is creating "certain states", into which a candidate doesn't even have to set foot in order to win (especially if they are small). While without electoral collage every state would basically become to some degree a swing state and anyone would matter regardless of which party they belong. The point of elections is that you win by the quality of ideas and policies, not by having more "default" states.


Therefore without electoral college everyone would have a more honest say instead of just a few swing states. Since the point is that states don't really have a say in this. Especially because in both deep red and deep blues states you have plenty of people which votes in GE simply doesn't matter. Plus voting would surely go up if every vote would literally matter, since in this case the whole country would be one big swing state.

 

[EcK]

One that reduces tax rates, stifling regulations & the size of government would be a good start.