Jump to content
270soft Forum
ThePotatoWalrus

Youngest Forum Users

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, vcczar said:

Caleb would probably get Attorney General.

I'm more than pleased with that cabinet position. I plan on going into law and eventually the judiciary, but attorney general is definitely fine too :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, vcczar said:

Honestly, Patine might be the only person I'd interview, when you consider none of use are probably well-qualified. He's articulate, intelligent, would take the job serious, and has values, integrity, and a sane mind. However, I think he'd even admit that I probably shouldn't take him, since others would be more capable, because of experience, etc. 

If I were forced to pick only forum members. I'd pick @Patine @jvikings1 @Conservative Elector 2 @jnewt @Sunnymentoaddict @SeanFKennedy @SiorafasNaCillini @admin_270 @michaelsdiamonds @Falcon @President Garrett Walker @CalebsParadox @sanser (not sure why her name isn't coming up). 

Perhaps someday, @Reagan04 and @NYrepublican. Reagan has a hard time separate church from state, and you are a little too impulsive right now. Both of you have the intelligence to be in the forum cabinet, however. 

As you can see, I include some conservatives to represent those that didn't vote for me, but whom I hope to also do some things for. Patine would be VP. Anthony at State. JViking at Defense. Conservative at Treasury (because, as a conservative, he'd be inclined to find the most cost-effective ways for my progressive program), and the rest would get various cabinet positions. Caleb would probably get Attorney General. Sanser at Health (I think a woman should lead the health department since women have so many unique health issues that get ignored by male health secretaries). 

I'd probably make you and Reagan deputies to one of the above or have other important positions until you both showed that I was wrong in undervaluing you. I'd certainly give you the chance. . 

I wouldn't want potatowalrus, servo, presidentinsertname, koneke or johnnyk anywhere near the White House. 

 

What cabinet position would you appoint me, just curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeanFKennedy said:

What cabinet position would you appoint me, just curious. 

I'm not sure. Maybe Labor, Interior or Education, something like that. If you have any sort of experience or ambition for finance, then Commerce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I'm not sure. Maybe Labor, Interior or Education, something like that. If you have any sort of experience or ambition for finance, then Commerce. 

Being a union steward currently I would say Labor would probably be best. Education would be a close second choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeanFKennedy said:

Being a union steward currently I would say Labor would probably be best. Education would be a close second choice.

Then I'd give you labor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

Then I'd give you labor. 

I'm not sure if you saw my statement on my view of positions of actual political power and myself (as it ended up at the very bottom of page 2, and only actually tagged @NYrepublican), but it might be worth a quick read in this hypothetical sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Patine said:

I, myself, would not actively seek or desire a position of significant political power. Unlike many people (including many on these forums, I'll bet), I actually would not TRUST myself with such power. I view myself as wanting to better things, yes, but some of my views (especially regarding the very institutions and pillars of governance itself and long-standing laws and conventions that lead to nothing but inefficiency and promote and enable infighting and obstructionism endlessly) are quite radical by most people's standards, and, although not tyrannical or despotic, I can often (as many have seen here) become impatient of and condescending toward a lot of opposition viewpoints. Being a commentator, advisor, or other such position would likely suit me much better, to be honest.

That takes a lot of self-knowledge to know that you wouldn't trust yourself with such power. While we are similar, I think I could trust myself with that power. While I have Left to Far-left views, I'm not dogmatic in action. Like Obama, I'd probably disappoint some of my supporters by willingly compromising, since I don't believe in winner-takes-all systems. @Reagan04 @jvikings1 @Conservative Elector 2 will get some things they want, and I may even offer it before they ask. I just think its the right thing to do. Obviously, it won't be anything that I think puts the people or planet at risk, and it's not going to be anything that screws the poor, elderly, disabled (included wounded vets). I would agree that I'd be equally impatient (at least on key policies), but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd fill my offices with people that work fast and efficiently for this reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That takes a lot of self-knowledge to know that you wouldn't trust yourself with such power. While we are similar, I think I could trust myself with that power. While I have Left to Far-left views, I'm not dogmatic in action. Like Obama, I'd probably disappoint some of my supporters by willingly compromising, since I don't believe in winner-takes-all systems. @Reagan04 @jvikings1 @Conservative Elector 2 will get some things they want, and I may even offer it before they ask. I just think its the right thing to do. Obviously, it won't be anything that I think puts the people or planet at risk, and it's not going to be anything that screws the poor, elderly, disabled (included wounded vets). I would agree that I'd be equally impatient (at least on key policies), but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd fill my offices with people that work fast and efficiently for this reason. 

Whereas the Scottish poet Robert Burns famously said, "ambition is critical," I think my ambition is to BE critical... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That takes a lot of self-knowledge to know that you wouldn't trust yourself with such power. While we are similar, I think I could trust myself with that power. While I have Left to Far-left views, I'm not dogmatic in action. Like Obama, I'd probably disappoint some of my supporters by willingly compromising, since I don't believe in winner-takes-all systems. @Reagan04 @jvikings1 @Conservative Elector 2 will get some things they want, and I may even offer it before they ask. I just think its the right thing to do. Obviously, it won't be anything that I think puts the people or planet at risk, and it's not going to be anything that screws the poor, elderly, disabled (included wounded vets). I would agree that I'd be equally impatient (at least on key policies), but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd fill my offices with people that work fast and efficiently for this reason. 

I think that's fair, and it might even be worth it to appoint outright members of the other party (beyond a token individual). Particularly on the issues that don't comprise the biggest elements of a president's platform, I think the cabinet presents an opportunity for bipartisanship. It allows constructive dialogue in areas the president isn't as passionate about, and when it does come to the plank he/she was elected on, the president can point to his/her willingness to compromise with the other side on issues to garner support (or to at least get cloture to prevent filibusters).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thr33 said:

I think that's fair, and it might even be worth it to appoint outright members of the other party (beyond a token individual). Particularly on the issues that don't comprise the biggest elements of a president's platform, I think the cabinet presents an opportunity for bipartisanship. It allows constructive dialogue in areas the president isn't as passionate about, and when it does come to the plank he/she was elected on, the president can point to his/her willingness to compromise with the other side on issues to garner support (or to at least get cloture to prevent filibusters).

In multi-party parliamentary systems where coalition governments are necessary to hold government, cabinets with all (or at least most) member parties of the coalition represented are a long-established standard of politics. But in the U.S., having even a single cabinet member outside the President's party is a rarity and treated as a special event. A very different point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Whereas the Scottish poet Robert Burns famously said, "ambition is critical," I think my ambition is to BE critical... :P

Haha. That's not a bad ambition to have. 

@NYrepublican There is something lacking in me that makes me not run. It might be a lack of ambition. It might be a lack of desire for power. It might be that I don't see campaigning as something I'd like to do. It might also be that I have a very difficult time pretending to be all things to all people to get votes. I have few ties to popular culture--I don't like country music or rap music. I don't watch the newest movies. I make as much money as the common man, but I'm not terribly in touch with the common man, since my interests are mostly academic, outside of NFL Football. I think I could be a mediocre to great politician (I have now of knowing), but I don't think I'd easily get elected, even if I had the funding. I'd have to win with sincerity, honesty, and ideas on campaign, and by sincerity, honesty, and performance in reelection. 

My last name is hard to pronounce too, so that won't help either. However, until I gained 15 lbs recently, I was the same height (6'4") and weight (180 lbs) as Abraham Lincoln.  So I have that going for me. I have a good speaking voice. However, I don't really show much expression when I speak, which can make me seem perpetually unimpressed, even if I think something is funny or worthy of anger. I don't really laugh. I don't really yell. I think Americans prefer overt emotion in their politicians and, sadly, non-thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

In multi-party parliamentary systems where coalition governments are necessary to hold government, cabinets with all (or at least most) member parties of the coalition represented are a long-established standard of politics. But in the U.S., having even a single cabinet member outside the President's party is a rarity and treated as a special event. A very different point of view.

If we eliminated the twelfth amendment and the filibuster, and reduced the roles of the presidency, it would be very interesting to see what kind of parties would form here. Could see:

People's Party (right-wing populists): ~15%

Conservatives (rest of the republicans and the DLC dems): ~35%

Social Dems: ~35%

Greens: ~10%

Minor Parties: ~5% (probably not enough to achieve representation)

Could make for a fun custom scenario series in Congress Infinity tbh. Would have to look at key votes most likely to categorize Members of Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thr33 said:

I think that's fair, and it might even be worth it to appoint outright members of the other party (beyond a token individual). Particularly on the issues that don't comprise the biggest elements of a president's platform, I think the cabinet presents an opportunity for bipartisanship. It allows constructive dialogue in areas the president isn't as passionate about, and when it does come to the plank he/she was elected on, the president can point to his/her willingness to compromise with the other side on issues to garner support (or to at least get cloture to prevent filibusters).

Well, if my forum cabinet is any idea of how I would appoint a cabinet, I have three Republicans in the cabinet. This is three times more than is generally done. I'd certainly have advisers specifically to play devil's advocate and present alternative views. I wouldn't want to enact a policy of my ideological viewpoint unless it was virtually impenetrable, which means I'd have to probably listen to the other side as much, or more, than people that agree with me.  I'd want to render criticism of my policies to impotent and feckless talking points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Haha. That's not a bad ambition to have. 

@NYrepublican There is something lacking in me that makes me not run. It might be a lack of ambition. It might be a lack of desire for power. It might be that I don't see campaigning as something I'd like to do. It might also be that I have a very difficult time pretending to be all things to all people to get votes. I have few ties to popular culture--I don't like country music or rap music. I don't watch the newest movies. I make as much money as the common man, but I'm not terribly in touch with the common man, since my interests are mostly academic, outside of NFL Football. I think I could be a mediocre to great politician (I have now of knowing), but I don't think I'd easily get elected, even if I had the funding. I'd have to win with sincerity, honesty, and ideas on campaign, and by sincerity, honesty, and performance in reelection. 

My last name is hard to pronounce too, so that won't help either. However, until I gained 15 lbs recently, I was the same height (6'4") and weight (180 lbs) as Abraham Lincoln.  So I have that going for me. I have a good speaking voice. However, I don't really show much expression when I speak, which can make me seem perpetually unimpressed, even if I think something is funny or worthy of anger. I don't really laugh. I don't really yell. I think Americans prefer overt emotion in their politicians and, sadly, non-thinking. 

Funny thing is, Lincoln did next to no personal campaigning, speaking, or touring during the 1860 election. In fact, from what I read, of the four candidates, only Stephen Douglas actively campaigned personally and made a big speaking tour, and somehow he came in last of the four...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 There is something lacking in me that makes me not run. It might be a lack of ambition. It might be a lack of desire for power. It might be that I don't see campaigning as something I'd like to do. It might also be that I have a very difficult time pretending to be all things to all people to get votes. I have few ties to popular culture--I don't like country music or rap music. I don't watch the newest movies. I make as much money as the common man, but I'm not terribly in touch with the common man, since my interests are mostly academic, outside of NFL Football. I think I could be a mediocre to great politician (I have now of knowing), but I don't think I'd easily get elected, even if I had the funding. I'd have to win with sincerity, honesty, and ideas on campaign, and by sincerity, honesty, and performance in reelection. 

My last name is hard to pronounce too, so that won't help either. However, until I gained 15 lbs recently, I was the same height (6'4") and weight (180 lbs) as Abraham Lincoln.  So I have that going for me. I have a good speaking voice. However, I don't really show much expression when I speak, which can make me seem perpetually unimpressed, even if I think something is funny or worthy of anger. I don't really laugh. I don't really yell. I think Americans prefer overt emotion in their politicians and, sadly, non-thinking. 

@vcczar If neccessary you can always emulate techniques used by Trump or Bernie to build cult-like followings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Well, if my forum cabinet is any idea of how I would appoint a cabinet, I have three Republicans in the cabinet. This is three times more than is generally done. I'd certainly have advisers specifically to play devil's advocate and present alternative views. I wouldn't want to enact a policy of my ideological viewpoint unless it was virtually impenetrable, which means I'd have to probably listen to the other side as much, or more, than people that agree with me.  I'd want to render criticism of my policies to impotent and feckless talking points. 

That's fair, and seems a lot like the approach for which someone like Ben Franklin would advocate.

Would you try and focus on a landmark piece of legislation during your administration? Or would you try and enact pragmatic changes/reform where possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Patine said:

Funny thing is, Lincoln did next to no personal campaigning, speaking, or touring during the 1860 election. In fact, from what I read, of the four candidates, only Stephen Douglas actively campaigned personally and made a big speaking tour, and somehow he came in last of the four...

Theodore Roosevelt was the first modern-day campaign president that won with campaigning. Douglas actually did more campaigning after he lost, to help keep the Union together. Weaver (Populist) might be the first true campaign candidate. WJ Bryan was the first of the major party--far outdoing Douglas. Roosevelt and Wilson made it normal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

@vcczar If neccessary you can always emulate techniques used by Trump or Bernie to build cult-like followings.

I don't emulate, and I wouldn't ever want to build a cult-following, since that is unlikely to produce disciples that can live up to the expectations of the people, who expect the next leader to be identical or grander than the original cult-leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, thr33 said:

That's fair, and seems a lot like the approach for which someone like Ben Franklin would advocate.

Would you try and focus on a landmark piece of legislation during your administration? Or would you try and enact pragmatic changes/reform where possible?

I would have to let events dictate that. I'd be happy if I were successful in either case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, thr33 said:

That's fair, and seems a lot like the approach for which someone like Ben Franklin would advocate.

Would you try and focus on a landmark piece of legislation during your administration? Or would you try and enact pragmatic changes/reform where possible?

As I recall, Benjamin Franklin was a staunch opponent of the formation, empowerment, and entrenchment of political parties in American governance in the first place, as he hoped to avoid the pitfalls of such a system that were already evident in the British Parliament, which was already thoroughly partisan by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I would have to let events dictate that. I'd be happy if I were successful in either case. 

Fair enough. It does seem a lot of how presidents are judged historically is based on outside events (foreign policy and market growth/recessions). Decision making in a tense time has a lot of value.

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

As I recall, Benjamin Franklin was a staunch opponent of the formation, empowerment, and entrenchment of political parties in American governance in the first place, as he hoped to avoid the pitfalls of such a system that were already evident in the British Parliament, which was already thoroughly partisan by then.

That rings somewhat of a bell. I'd support any measures that would reduce party strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, thr33 said:

Fair enough. It does seem a lot of how presidents are judged historically is based on outside events (foreign policy and market growth/recessions). Decision making in a tense time has a lot of value.

That rings somewhat of a bell. I'd support any measures that would reduce party strength.

@Patine

He said something about being an "extreme moderate," and that anyone to the left or right of him should be castrated, or something to that effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

@Patine

He said something about being an "extreme moderate," and that anyone to the left or right of him should be castrated, or something to that effect. 

But given he was an educated man of the late 18th Century who probably still held some of the dry, subtle British-style humour and turns of speech, did he mean 'castration' physically and literally, or in terms of 'neutering' their political power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...