Regardless of politics, Obama is clearly the better leader. He's poised, an excellent public speaker, charismatic, and good at compromise. Trump lacks self-control, stating whatever pops into his head as his emotions dictate, undermining the efforts to compromise of both his enemies and his allies. His public speaking skills leave much to be desired, and, instead of being charismatic, he's massively unpleasant both in public and in private. Even if his policies really do make America "great" as he claims, it won't be because of his leadership skills.
Reply to this opinion
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
Discussion (30)
::unhide-discussion::
While I'll agree President Obama was charismatic, he wasn't that good of a public speaker if he ever had to leave his prepared speech, and he wasn't good at compromise, look at the number of times he just ignored congress, the number of times he said that if he didn't get his way he'd act without congressional approval. That is not someone who's good at compromise.
Unlike President Obama, President Trump was never a politician he was a businessman and didn't worry about playing nice or that his words might effect things outside his world. But just because you happen to be unpleasant, arrogant, etc, doesn't mean you can't be a great leader or have leadership skills, you only have to look Steve Jobs, like President Trump, he could also be arrogant unpleasant, but he did lead apple to success.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
0 votes,
Mar 12, 2017
I thought his unwillingness to compromise his ideals was quite inspirational and something to be admired, given the circumstances.
I would be as impressed if Donald Trump would be able to find a compromise with the ones opposing his most extreme views.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
But, when conservatives do the same thing they are branded as obstructionist. It depends on who's side you're on, if they are standing up for something you believe in, then they are standing on principal, if they are opposing what you want then they are obstructionist. In either case that's not someone who's good at compromise, there are ways to set things up so that both sides, win.
Take roommates for example, they are renting an apartment and agree to split everything 50/50, so far so good, but one bed room is bigger and has it own bathroom, who get that? They could fight and both say they get the nicer room, or they could compromise, one person could suggest that whoever gets the bigger room would pay 10% more then let the other person decide which room they wanted, a win, win. The person who get the bigger room pays a little more, and the other person get a little reduction in rent.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
0 votes,
Mar 13, 2017
I suppose that an external factor for me in deciding whether someone is acting on principles or is being obstructionist, is their attitude towards science and facts. I find it hard to take politicians seriously when they deny the historical existence of dinosaurs, for example. To me, this is a predictor for them being obstructionist towards truth, which reflects their politics/policies/progress.
The dilemma you've proposed is clarifying but not as complex as the post-Iraq invasion and its aftermath, rendering the US into one of the most hated countries in the world (for at least a while). People were expecting improvement on so many levels; there was hardly any room/time left for compromise, should one even have considered that [as an option].
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
Well, once they go off the deep end of non-science ie "deny the historical existence of dinosaurs" or that the earth is only 5,000 years old and some being put the fossils there for us to find (which doesn't make any sense but there are people who think the earth is flat. But as long as they haven't drank the kook-aid and gone off the deep end there is a lot of wiggle room in science.
"...rendering the US into one of the most hated countries in the world ..."
On another board I have a long post about this, the US is damn if we do damn if we don't. If the US gets involved, the how DARE the US impose it will on another country, if the US doesn't get involved then how can the US just STAND there and do nothing. It's not a unique problem, people, counties want to blame others for their problems. If "they" would stop or if they would just step in we wouldn't be suffering. If the US stood by the didn't stop Saddam, then the US would be blamed for NOT stepping in because of it's past support for Saddam, (there are people who say that the US and Great Britain should be held responsible for the atrocities under Saddam given their past support and the fact they didn't stop him at the time), so should the US stayed out of Iraq?
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
0 votes,
Mar 14, 2017
I'm actually against other countries blaming the US for "standing by" (while taking their own neighbours for granted), because it would mean they place the responsibility and control out of their hands, ultimately creating resentment against their helper (speaking of "damned if you do/don't"). I admit it must be difficult to be demanded for help, and ironically the many surviving victims Saddam had are realizing that with his departure, "thousands of Saddams" came in his place.
My problem with the US entering Iraq was that this was under false pretenses ("weapons of mass destruction"), exacerbating/taking advantage of a post-9/11 political climate. But to be fair, the Netherlands did tag along then. I don't hold the US accountable for that choice (which a vast majority of our own population disapproved of), rather our own then-government who apparently proved vulnerable for the "either with or against us"-dichotomy. We might have been damned if we didn't [join you], but I personally would have rather had it that way (frightening as that prospect was) and be damned for taking a stand against, well, you. This might have produced the same outcome for you, but not for us (anyway, I will look up your post).
"But as long as they haven't drank the kook-aid and gone off the deep end there is a lot of wiggle room in science." <- This sentence made me laugh, but I probably didn't understand it.
And yes some people think the earth is flat, but a professional athlete believing this is something else than if a policy-maker does, just as the latter can use as many steroids he likes without affecting his professional credibility, compared to the former.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
"US entering Iraq was that this was under false pretenses"
There's the problem, everyone knew Saddam had them at one time and had used them, he refused to cooperate with the UN,
1991 Iraqis fire warning shots at inspectors to prevent them from intercepting vehicles suspected of carrying nuclear equipment. Later that year 1991 and also again in 1995 Iraq admitted to biological weapons research for "defensive purposes" only.
1998 Iraq halts cooperation with inspectors. US States and British forces launch Operation Desert Fox .
1998 Richard Butler reports Iraq's lack of cooperation on inspections.
2003 - Inspectors discover 12 chemical warheads, 11 of them empty, at the Ukhaider ammunition storage area.
2003 Iraq war.
So up to that point what would you think? Did Saddam have weapons of mass destruction or not? He wasn't acting like someone with nothing to hide.
October 6, 2004 - The final Iraq Survey Group report concludes that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
2005 - The Special Advisor to the Director of the CIA issues addendums to the Iraq Survey Group Comprehensive Report after additional investigations and intelligence.
"But as long as they haven't drank the kook-aid and gone off the deep end there is a lot of wiggle room in science." <- This sentence made me laugh, but I probably didn't understand it.
"drank the kook-aid" is an idiom that refers to any person or group who knowingly goes along with a doomed or dangerous idea because of peer pressure. It also goes back to a 1978 cult mass-suicide in Jonestown, Guyana, where the leader convinced his follower to drink cyanide laced kook-aid. The phrase oftentimes carries a negative connotation when applied to an individual or group. By wiggle room in science I mean there is nothing really settled in science, there is always something that might toss a wrench into the works. Or to put it another way all theories are one experiment away from being proven wrong. I won't go into the whole global warming (AGW) thing thats a long discussion, but I will say there is a LOT of wiggle room in AGW. For the record yes we are warming but the question is how much is man-made.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
Up to that point I would conclude that Saddam was especially busy snubbing the UN (nowadays a common occurence) by disrespecting their appointed inspectors, thinking "it is not up to them to interfere" with his "defending" practices (implying the existence of a threat in his own mind; I presume Iran? Or his own people?). I don't mean to downplay the perceived threat in/of Iraq (who knows if those 12 warheads weren't empty anymore by now), but I remember even at the time not understanding the necessity for intervention on such a scale, at times presuming that "weapons of mass destruction" meant an impending attack comparable to the one at the WTC.
I read your take on AGW and I upvoted it. I am aware of the wiggle room in science, but there is no need to disregard it entirely, like some (obstructionist) politicians do.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
Given the sanctions imposed by the UN you'd think Saddam would have wanted them lifted ASAP, given warning shots at the inspectors that tells me they were really trying to hide something. Maybe Saddam didn't have the control he / the world thought he did, but really shooting at people to stop them means you're trying to hide something.
"..but there is no need to disregard it entirely, like some (obstructionist) politicians do."
They are playing to their base in 10 seconds or less. We're in the sound byte era, if you can't say it in 10 seconds nobody will listen. Also politicians will give non-answer answers.
"Sir do you believe in man-made global warming."
"That's an excellent question, unfortunately there are many questions about global warming that need to be answered, all we can do is wait to see how that research pans out. Next question."
A non-answer answer, a good politician will never give a straight answer, if they do they lose many of the one issue voters, and give enough straight answers and you lose the election.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
0 votes,
Mar 14, 2017
Well, a politician isn't a scientist, and you've said yourself that "all theories are one experiment away from being proven wrong." Which is why values and ethics are another important factor in policy-making.
We don't need to wait for science to prove how bad things are, when common sense dictates plenty of choices that might benefit the environment anyway (like investing in research for sustainable energy sources).
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
load further replies (10)
::unhide-discussion::
I would argue that his interactions with Congress are a poor example of his ability to compromise, not because of any fault of his, but because he was faced with a Congress that would refuse to entertain any cooperation on his major legislation not because of its content but simply because it came from him. The ACA is the best example. Despite the fact that it was based off of a piece of Republican legislation Republicans vehemently opposed it, and now that Republicans are back in power, their solution to repeal it...has kept most of it in place.
They would repeatedly block him however he turned; his broad use of his executive power wasn't due to his lack of ability to compromise, but due to the fact that his opponents were unwilling to compromise.
And while YUNo is right that he never compromised his core ideals, from a policy perspective, Obama was somewhat of a centrist who, like Clinton, accomplished much of the Republican agenda. He was tough on terror (but not tough on Muslims), ushering in the drone strikes that are widely decried as indiscriminate killing (mostly by liberals). He tried to push through the TPP, a massive pro-globalization and pro-free trade deal (which historically has been a conservative position; the fact that the Republican party, on Trump's back, ahs now become anti-free-trade is totally bizarre). And despite the fact that he tried to improve the lives of immigrants, he also deported more of them than any other president.
And I agree, simply being unpleasant doesn't make you a bad leader. Johnson, for example, was horribly unpleasant and would use both his height and his penis to physically intimidate people into doing what he wanted. But Trump isn't only unpleasant. He's bullish and petulant. And not in a deliberate way, like Johnson. He simply seems unable to control what comes out of his mouth, which is why he constantly contradicts himself and communicates with the American people primarily in 140 characters or less. That lack of self-control, that instability, is what pushes him as a leader far below the level of Obama.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
"Despite the fact that it was based off of a piece of Republican legislation." Kind of, in 1993 there was a Republican bill in the Senate that looked a whole lot like ACA, but it wasn’t the only GOP bill on health carel, it never came to a vote and plenty of Republicans didn’t like it. Now one of the big reason people oppose the ACA isn't the act, but how it was passed. Many see it as a back room deal to shut out debate, remember "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.” which to a lot of people meant "We don't trust you to read and understand the bill", or as some people saw it ,"Shut up we KNOW what's best for you." BTW there are better ways of give people health coverage.
"They would repeatedly block him however he turned" or Republicans would said they were unwilling to compromise their core principals, it just depends on who's side you're on. Someone who was good at compromise, would have found a way to bring the other side on board, not ram what they wanted down their throats. Someone once said "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way." in this case you could as easily say "Compromise is the art of letting someone else have your way."
Free trade only works when, as the UK has found out, when the countries involved have very similar economies, if one country had a much lower standard of living, IE US vs Mexico, then you have job flight. In Mexico the auto manufactures pays between $8 and $10 an hour plus benefits, a new hire in the US will make $16 to $19 an hour, plus benefits it doesn't take an accountant to see that you can make much more profit by moving the jobs away. When the "free trade" was sold to the workers, they were told how many jobs it would create, how much better we'd have it, and even then many people where not convinced. Time has shown that we had massive job flight, life in the middle of the country didn't get better, so now there are many people who are almost anti-trade, and President Trump took advantage of that. And the illegal alien problem, liberal really missed out on that issue, even though President Obama deported more people, his stand on "dreamers" made it seem he was soft on the illegal alien problem. Many people think the law should be followed, and those breaking our immigration laws, those who are working in the US illegally should be deported. Many feel the hearing should be, "Are you here illegally, if yes then are you claiming asylum and if so on what ground?", and if asylum isn't granted they should be on the next flight out of the country.
"And I agree, simply being unpleasant doesn't make you a bad leader. Johnson,..." President Johnson, was a long time politician , he learned to keep his mouth shut and give non-answer answers, it one of the thing some people found refreshing about Trump, he spoke his mind, and sometime misspoke, said thing that people were thinking but didn't dare to say. Time will tell if he become a better politician and self edits himself, or not.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
load further replies (8)
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
@
click for template
OR
Share it:
Share this opinion via OpiWiki smartlink:
OR
Opinion's page
Click the @ to see full topic's discussion.
Status:
Active
Replies:
30
Main replies:
1
subscribe
For new main reply notification
Voting
(35 votes)
Related items [2]