Social Question

flutherother's avatar

Are there any politicians, Republican, Democrat or other fit to lead America?

Asked by flutherother (30158points) July 15th, 2017

The American political system has thrown up a doozy but surely there is someone capable of effectively leading the United States. Who would you recommend and why?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

54 Answers

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Oprah. Jesse Ventura. Because they are both mature and responsible adults.

josie's avatar

Why are Americans dependent on a Leader?
What is wrong with a mere chief executive?

Zaku's avatar

I’d take the various progressives that I know of.

Bernie Sanders
Tulsi Gabbard
Nina Turner
Zephyr Teachout
Ed Markey
Cory Booker
Jeff Merkley
Chris Van Hollen
Kamala Harris
Mazie Hirono
Jack Reed
Sherrod Brown
Tammy Baldwin
Keith Ellison
Tim Canova
Pramila Jayapal
Peter Welch
...

These are people (my list isn’t complete and may not be perfect) who consistently vote against the corrupt corporate agenda, and for measures for the well-being of the people and the planet.

seawulf575's avatar

No. Because they are politicians, they are already tainted and self-serving. To find a good leader for this country, we need to go outside the realm of career politicians.

Strauss's avatar

^^Uh…didn’t we just try that?

seawulf575's avatar

And absolutely no one has given him a chance, have they? There were protests and accusations from the very first week Trump was in office. He has been accused of many, many things which all have ended up being proven false. There have been efforts to create crimes so there might be charges for impeachment. In other words, we (the general public) are being force fed a story and many are eating it up. Let’s look at what has happened since he has taken office, and actually before he assumed office. The economy is growing faster than it has in a long time. Jobs are being created, and the majority are not part time jobs as they were under his predecessor. He is attacking DC corruption by limiting lobbying efforts of former DC employees. No one can argue these are bad things. And he has managed to get this done despite constant attack and battle with a recalcitrant and corrupt congress as well as a bias media.
What WE are hearing is a whole lot of created scandal and absolutely nothing of his accomplishments. So what we SHOULD be arguing against is DC corruption and Journalistic bias.

kritiper's avatar

Look for a Moderate, a true middle-of-the-roader, for our next exceptional president.

janbb's avatar

@seawulf575 Sorry to be blunt but are you fucking kidding me? All Conservatives can come up with is “Give him a chance.” This isn’t the second day of kindergarten; this is someone who is massively unsuited for arguably the hardest job in the world – who has pulled out of important agreements, been rude to foreign leaders, elevated his family to positions of power they are unsuited for and been crass and cruel to women and their rights.

There was no need to give him a chance, anyway. It was clear who he was from the get go of his campaign if not before. And he has a Republican House and Senate, if he can’t accomplish something, there is no one else to blame – it’s not the media and it’s not the liberals. It just might be that he – and the Republicans – have BAD IDEAS.

And don’t give me rants about “the media” as if it were some monolith. You’re obviously drinking from your Kool-Aid fountain, just as you would claim we drink from ours.

Ok – over and out. i said it and I’m glad.

chyna's avatar

@seawulf575. That is exactly how they treated Obama. Lie after lie that were all proven false. And congress fought him every step of the way even if they agreed with him because hey, it’s just politics as usual.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575. No one has given him a chance? They’ve only made him president, how much more of a chance does he need? But being president means you will be subject to scrutiny. That’s what happens in a democracy. American presidents have always accepted that and not dismissed all criticism as ‘fake news’.

The latest growth figures released since Trump took office show a decline in the GDP rate to 1.4% though in fairness the first quarter of the year usually sees a lower rate. The jobs market is improving and unemployment is falling but this only continues a trend seen under President Obama.

As far as corruption goes Trump has given senior posts to family members and to billionaires. How is this attacking DC corruption?

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother Which president in our history has had members of the opposing party start impeachment discussions before he was sworn into office? Which president had the opposing party and the complicit media concoct stories to support that impeachment idea? And don’t get me wrong…I’m not a huge Donald Trump fan. But I do believe that he has some good ideas. I am merely suggesting that we stop the hatred and the focus on the bogus stories long enough to think about them and discuss them. This is something I believe we owe to any person we elect as POTUS. It is possible that his ideas don’t have any merit. It is possible that he is just as corrupt as everyone else in DC. But so far, he hasn’t shown any of that. Is he pompous? Absolutely. Is he an egomaniac? Sure…most presidents are or at least have been for the past 60 years or so. But until we can come up with honest, open discussions, it is all just spew.
And your fear of Trump giving family members positions is bogus as well. He has retained them as advisors and, as far as I can find, they aren’t getting paid so it isn’t even nepotism. But Presidents hiring family members goes back to the 1700’s Many presidents have done this over the years. Adams, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Buchanan, Taylor, Grant, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all had family members in jobs at the White House. Even Clinton asked Hillary to head up a health-care task force which was challenged. So to suddenly come out and act like this is something new and nefarious is bogus.
But back to my original statement, we need to stop voting in career politicians. When we elect the same people over and over, they don’t have new ideas, they are available to big business and foreign interests for bribes or “contributions”, and they vote not based on what is good for their constituents or the country, but based on what benefits them or their party. That is what is wrong with Washington DC these days…to many of these types causing gridlock and not actually leading the country.

seawulf575's avatar

@janbb You have spoken and must be proud of yourself. To be blunt, you are totally misguided. All I have said is that we should give the POTUS a chance to prove himself good or bad. So far that hasn’t been done. But the rest of your diatribe is hypocritical at its best and generally ludicrous. ”...this is someone who is massively unsuited for arguably the hardest job in the world…” How is he massively unsuited? He has lead multimillion dollar interests. He has been a Chief Executive and had to deal with the pressures of that. Meanwhile, let’s go back to Obama for a minute and compare your statement to him. He went from community organizer to POTUS in 12 years. That is unheard of in these days. He had no leadership experience. He had no demonstrations of being able to make tough decisions. Yet I don’t see you slamming him with the exact same statement. Of the two, Trump has the better resume.
”...who has pulled out of important agreements, been rude to foreign leaders, elevated his family to positions of power they are unsuited for and been crass and cruel to women and their rights.” What important agreements? The climate change stuff? There just isn’t enough time or energy to try educating you on that topic. But here is a question for you…what did any of the climate change agreements have to say other than to cut back on carbon emissions? Did they offer any other methods of cleaning up the atmosphere? No. Here is an amazing fact that elementary students learn…plants love CO2 and they turn it into O2. Yet where in any of the discussions was there talk of planting trees or plants or saving the rainforests or anything like that? there wasn’t. Climate change is not about climate. He was rude to foreign leaders. Possibly, and some of them deserve rudeness. But let’s go look at, again, Obama. How many times did he snub the British? Was it the box of DVD’s to the Prime Minister or the iPod to the queen that gets the biggest gaffe award? He refused to meet with the PM at least once and then declared France to be our biggest ally. Where was your outrage then? On to the Crass and Cruel to women and their rights. Ever hear of Bill Clinton and Troopergate? Ever hear of all the women that talk about how he touched them inappropriately and even raped them and how Hillary helped cover it up? That was far worse than anything Trump has said or done yet amazingly you don’t have the same outrage towards them.
Face it..you are drowning in the kool-aid.
But you are right about one thing…it does feel good to say it.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Yes, of course there are.

But most – almost all of the people who have the smarts and depth and intellect to be a good president have already come to the conclusion that it isn’t worth the trouble.

Who would want to put up with the shit from the right and the left, and all the right wing talk show hosts, and the character assassination? Who would want to be out fund raising 200–300 days each year?

There are lots of good smart leaders in the US, but I completely sympathize with politicians who just feel that politics is so toxic they don’t want to be in the game at a national level.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575 “How is he massively unsuited? He has lead multimillion dollar interests. He has been a Chief Executive and had to deal with the pressures of that.”

Government is not a business and cannot be run like one. Skills in one don’t necessarily translate over to the other.

rockfan's avatar

Cory Booker is definitely not a progressive, he’s an establishment democrat

rockfan's avatar

@kritiper

I think the last thing we need is a moderate president to run for office. Hillary Clinton campaigned as a moderate and lost against Trump in embarrassing fashion. A true progressive would have won.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar That is true, but leadership traits do carry over. Leadership is pretty universal. And the skills that would carry over from a business to government would include things like negotiations, dealing with people, and dealing with pressure.

seawulf575's avatar

@rockfan that gets back to my argument that we don’t need career politicians. The only reason that Hillary was the nominee for the democratic party is because the career politicians have so skewed the system that the nomination process isn’t even democratic any longer. If it were, Sanders would have been the nominee.

LostInParadise's avatar

It would be nice to have a progressive candidate who presented a clear plan of how to solve our problems. I am not seeing it.

Like him or not, Trump has laid out his general vision of what needs to be done – take from the poor and give to the rich, remove pollution controls, get close to authoritarian leaders, pursue isolationism, and take a generally anti-science stance, particularly with regard to climate change.

There is too much negative politics. I don’t want to hear what Trump is doing wrong. I know that already. I want to see a clear alternative.

kritiper's avatar

@rockfan The problem with Hillary was that she (a Liberal) was going to continue the policies of Obama, which were too far left. Not a Moderate stance at all. And the reason she lost, IMO, was because too many who were for her stayed home on election day because they were led to believe that she was sure to win.
A recent report I read in “The Week” magazine, stated that 50% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans are actually Moderates, so if Hillary was a true Moderate, she would have won. So don’t try to tell us that she is a Moderate! That’s pure BS!

What exactly is a “progressive,” and where exactly do they stand? Is it someone who is far right, far left, or right down the middle? If a “progressive” is none of the three, then they must not stand for anything at all.

rockfan's avatar

You realize that Obamacare was a conservative bill to fight against single payer right?

Obama is without a doubt an establishment democrat. If he was far left he would have fought against money in politics, championed single payer healthcare, and been an anti-interventionist, instead he’s a war hawk just like Hillary Clinton.

rockfan's avatar

And Hillary Clinton lost because of herself alone, she doesn’t owe anyone to vote for her. Her campaign barely addressed hard working Americans in the rust belt. And she chose an establishment democrat for VP.

rockfan's avatar

It’s been proven time and time again that Bernie Sanders would have won if he was the nominee. Because he actually stands for something.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575 “That is true, but leadership traits do carry over. Leadership is pretty universal. And the skills that would carry over from a business to government would include things like negotiations, dealing with people, and dealing with pressure.”

Except Trump really doesn’t, and has never, done those things. In his business dealings he left all the lifting to others while talking the credit because it’s his name on the company. Most of his business ventures haven’t been his at all, but rather things he’s licensed his name to. He’s not so much a businessman as he is a showboat.He’s great at selling the Trump brand, but not so great at running it (as evidence by his staggering failures back in the days when he did take a more active hand in running his business).

Darth_Algar's avatar

@kritiper “The problem with Hillary was that she (a Liberal) was going to continue the policies of Obama, which were too far left.”

Good lord…..

Obama was about as centrist as they come. People complain that he need someone who’s neither right nor left, but in the middle. Well we had that for eight years. Far left hardly exists in America. Go anywhere else in the world and the Democrats would be right wing.

janbb's avatar

@rockfan This is fighting an old fight and not much point in it, but much as I love Bernie Sanders , I don’t think he would have won. He doesn’t play well in the heartland – too East Coast.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 It’s OK to want someone who is not a career politicians to take charge of the White House but that doesn’t mean anyone and everyone who is not a career politician is suitable. Trump is a case in point, he is dishonest, self-serving and a liar. The infamous and now defunct ‘Trump University’ which Trump used to take real money in exchange for bogus courses and sham qualifications should have been enough to warn people off the guy.

What new ideas has Trump had? The Mexican Wall? That’s the kind of idea that’s spouted out in bars by guys who have had one drink too many. To create 25 million jobs over the next ten years? A number plucked out of thin air with no creative original thinking to back it up and give it substance. To make America great again? Give me a break.

I take your point about giving family members positions. This has been more common in US history than I thought. I don’t agree with it and I think it is one of the things that is wrong with politics in America today. There is a lot that is wrong with American politics but Trump sure as hell isn’t the answer.

kritiper's avatar

@Darth_Algar Another good reason for the next president to be a Moderate! Not “centrist,” not Republican, not Democrat, and sure-as-hell not a “progressive party” Tea Bagger (EXTREME conservative!)

Darth_Algar's avatar

@kritiper

Two questions -

What do you expect a president who’s neither Democrat nor Republican will accomplish with no support behind him in Congress?

What, exactly, does a “moderate” look like?

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother I absolutely agree with the idea that not everyone that is not a career politician is suitable. And I totally agree that there are personality traits that we need to look for…honesty, integrity, courage. But the funny thing is…most, if not all, of our elected career politicians have none of these either. The other ideas Trump had…let’s count them down and look at where they really came from. The Mexican wall. There were thousands of illegals entering this country every week from the Mexican border. Nothing was being done about it. 75% of all immigrants, legal and illegal are on some sort of public assistance in this country. Criminals were pouring across the border. Nothing was being done about it. So Trump suggested a wall partly as an actual deterrent and partly as a symbol that he actually saw the concerns of the public. Which other candidates did that? To create 25 million jobs over the next 10 years. Was that an exaggeration? Most likely. But his getting elected by itself has started to restore confidence in the economy to a point where job creation is going on more than it has in a long time. Face it, the previous administration did not offer anything that made businesses feel that hiring people was a good idea. To make America great again. It might sound corny, but again…most people in this country felt that the country has been heading in the wrong direction for a long time. They felt that what made America great once upon a time was quickly being tossed aside in an effort to create some socialistic experiment. Trump did nothing except create a slogan to show he was in tune with that. Do I believe Trump is a great leader or will be a great president? Not necessarily. He might surprise us all, but he could end up being just another waste of time. We have had a lot of those over the past 30 years. What I do strongly believe is that if we automatically write him off and support a congress that refuses to work with him while still doing nothing for us, then we deserve to watch our country crumble.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 While you may find courage in Trump you will look in vain for honesty and integrity. These qualities are spectacularly absent and without them you have a man of straw leading the country. Trump reflects the concerns of Americans for healthcare, jobs, the economy, immigration, terrorism but he has no real solutions to these problems. Where he offers solutions they are ill thought out simplifications that generate new problems he has not considered. Trump’s flaws are deeply embedded character flaws; while he personifies the country America can never be great.

kritiper's avatar

@Darth_Algar A Moderate will accomplish much because they appeal to some if not all things everyone in Congress wants, and what really are what’s best for the country. A Moderate is a person the Republicans view as a Democrat, and the Democrats view as a Republican. A Middle-of-the- roader! A Compromiser! Both a hawk and a dove! Half blue, half red!

And that should answer both of your questions.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@kritiper

Except it doesn’t. It’s vague and kinda side-steps the questions (especially the first).

Strauss's avatar

@seawulf575 I was wondering if you could provide some backups for your claims.

There have been efforts to create crimes so there might be charges for impeachment.
By whom, and what charges? (Sounds a lot like what happened to Hillary even many years before this election cycle)

The economy is growing faster than it has in a long time. Jobs are being created, and the majority are not part time jobs as they were under his predecessor.
I would argue that in the 120 or so days since his inauguration, any jobs that have been “created” have come about as a result of his predecessor.

What WE are hearing is a whole lot of created scandal

Law enforcement, especially on the federal level, has required to gather evidence and investigate whenever there is a serious accusation of wrong doing. That’s not creating scandal.

All that being said, there is one thing with which I agree with you wholeheartedly…

_ they are available to big business and foreign interests for bribes or “contributions”, and they vote not based on what is good for their constituents or the country, but based on what benefits them or their party._

Notice I did not include the part of that sentence that mentions career politicians. IMHO, the problem is not so much career politicians, but rather the way political campaigns are financed in the US today.

As long as money is considered speech, we will have the best politicians money can buy.

kritiper's avatar

@Darth_Algar Maybe you need to take your blinders off.

kritiper's avatar

@Darth_Algar Obama was farther left than any US president in at least the last 50 years. If he was indeed a Centrist (a Moderate, for those who may not know) he would have done much more to stop the genocide in Syria and would have sent more troops into Afghanistan rather than pulling them out and bringing them home.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother The lack of courage and honesty is one of the huge problems in DC and has been for decades. My thinking is not that Trump is some godsend to save us all, but rather something different. When you do the same thing over and over and expect different results, that is the definition of insanity. We in this country have tried electing career politicians, and in many cases the same ones, again and again and don’t understand why things continue to go downhill. Might as well try something new. Some of his ideas are screwy, but they do generate dialogue. He wants to build a wall. Realistic? Maybe, maybe not.. But what it does is force the conversation about what we can do about the idiotic open borders that have been forced on us for 8 years. I suggest people stop trying to demonize him just for the heck of it and actually have those conversations. Otherwise we are all part of the problem.

seawulf575's avatar

@Strauss “There have been efforts to create crimes so there might be charges for impeachment”: Starting on or before Jan 20 2017, before he had done more than be sworn into office, the Washington Post, the NY Daily News, The DailyKos, Change.org, and many others were already pushing the idea of what they would have to do to impeach him. I found at least three articles that were published at 12:01 pm on ½0/17 dealing with this exact conversation. He was sworn in at 12:00 on that day so they had to have written, edited and had these stories ready for post BEFORE he was president. Most recently they (Dems and the media) have tried tying him to Russia interference into the election and to Obstruction of Justice charges. These are charges for which there is no proof, and even those directly involved have refuted the idea that he was involved in any of these. So yes, efforts to create crimes for impeachment are alive and well in our corrupt country.
“The economy is growing faster than it has in a long time. Jobs are being created, and the majority are not part time jobs as they were under his predecessor.”: I give you this for the economy…and it is based on economic confidence, not based on anything Trump did. But look at the graph. As soon as “his predecessor” left office, confidence soared. As confidence goes up, so will other indicators…provided there isn’t reason to sour it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/205307/economic-confidence-index-record-high.aspx

If you go to the BLS stats, you can find that jobs that were failing under “his predecessor” are coming back and these are more full time jobs instead of the retail and service industry jobs, though to be honest those aren’t doing badly either.

“What WE are hearing is a whole lot of created scandal”: I don’t think this one needs any explanation. Look at the whole Russia-election-hacking fiasco. Let’s go back to the very beginning. Obama and Hillary SWORE that the election was safe and that no evidence of tampering existed. On Nov 25th, 2016, the NYT published a story that quoted the Obama administration of claiming that the election “accurately reflects the will of the American people.” After claiming that Trump’s claim of election rigging was “whining” and “not based on facts”, that song immediately changed when Trump won the election and suddenly “Russia hacked the election”. Now let me point out something else about that particular claim: it is impossible to hack an election. And when the claim was made that Russia interfered in the election, none of the spy agencies could find any proof of it. They finally claimed that they had hacked the DNC (which as a target for hacking is pretty weak) but even then the claims of Trump involvement hadn’t started. It was whining and not based on facts. Then, in an effort to create a scandal, the media started claiming Trump was in cahoots with Russia. Meanwhile, what is Trump doing? Well, he denied it because it wasn’t true and even those that finally tried saying Russia might have done something denied Trump was involved. But additionally, he opened up an investigation into the charges. That is something “his predecessor” refused to do in even the most obvious scandals of his term in offices. So yes, you are hearing created scandals.

Personally, I believe we need term limits on congress (House and Senate) and we need to change the “retirement” to being a severance package. Two terms for Senate and 3 for House and then no more federal service allowed. Severance package is full pay and benefits for two years and then nothing more. Keep the turnover going and those that are trying to buy influence will have to spend a whole lot more and still not be assured of getting what they want. Want more? Okay…how about this: Limit what can be spent on an election. No more than a million dollars for the presidency, no more than 250k for a House or Senate seat. Make these people figure out how to reach the people without just throwing money at slick campaigns. If they can show they know how to responsibly spend this money, then they already have a leg up on their duties in office.

janbb's avatar

@seawulf575 I totally agree with your suggestion of limitations on campaign spending. It is obscene.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@kritiper “Maybe you need to take your blinders off.”

Do you honestly believe that any president would accomplish anything with no party support?

“If he was indeed a Centrist (a Moderate, for those who may not know) he would have done much more to stop the genocide in Syria and would have sent more troops into Afghanistan rather than pulling them out and bringing them home.”

Specious reasoning.

Strauss's avatar

The ideological divide that has developed over the past 20 years or so has become so profound that it is almost impossible for any president to accomplish anything without a majority in Congress. And even then, it can be difficult.

kritiper's avatar

@Darth_Algar With 50% of all Democrats and 66% of all Republicans actually being Moderates, there would be support.
I think you see political parties as either left or right, North or South, East or West, or pure blue or pure red. (There are elements in between each, such as left leaning Republicans and right leaning Democrats.) The only political element I’ve seen recently with such extremely narrow minded attributes are the Tea Baggers, (Ooops, the “Progressive Party”) who are EXTREME far right Republicans. (Heck, they might more accurately be called the “Regressive Party.”)

seawulf575's avatar

@kritiper One correction…The Tea Party is not the Progressive Party…that would be the Democrats.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@kritiper

Everybody claims to be a “moderate”. Few can actually give a coherent, meaningful statement on what that actually means (but you can be sure that anyone who doesn’t agree with them isn’t a “moderate”). The one thing you can be sure of: politicians, no matter what they say, are going to tow the party line. That’s what keeps their campaigns funded, that’s what keeps them in office.

Strauss's avatar

@Darth_Algar Everybody claims to be a “moderate”.

And if it wasn’t so serious it’d be funny. Especially in these days of political polarization.

kritiper's avatar

@seawulf575 I know they (The Tea Party) changed their name. (The next time I see it I’ll write it down so I can remember it.) Like they’re trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes.
@Darth_Algar I know what keeps them in office. It goes without saying.
But there is plenty of room between what Democrats want, and what any Republicans want, for a third party that stands for a little of each of the other two, and is against a little of each of the other two, right smack dab in the middle. The best of both worlds!
@Strauss Great answer!

Darth_Algar's avatar

If only it were that easy then every problem would have been solved ages ago.

kritiper's avatar

@seawulf575 PRIOR POST UPDATE: “The Tea Party” changed their name to “The (American) Conservative Party.”
@Darth_Algar Do you mean that problems are getting solved now?? We all know there are problems, so it doesn’t need to be stated. What is needed is answers.
What would you propose?? A government operated by a single political party???

kritiper's avatar

A wise man once said: “Let he who is without viable ideas for problem solutions keep his damn mouth shut.”

Darth_Algar's avatar

@kritiper “Do you mean that problems are getting solved now??”

Not sure how you read that from my statement.

kritiper's avatar

It was rhetorical. You always play the devil’s advocate.
In your opinion, nobody’s ideas for possible solutions are any good, yet you can’t offer any workable ideas yourself.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Again, not sure how you read that from my statements, but whatever.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther