0
User voted Barack Obama.
0 votes
Mar 11, 2017

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
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Donald Trump.
main reply
0 votes,
Mar 12, 2017

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.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
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.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Donald Trump.
0 votes,
Mar 13, 2017

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.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
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].

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Donald Trump.
0 votes,
Mar 13, 2017

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?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
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.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Donald Trump.
0 votes,
Mar 14, 2017

"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.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Mar 14, 2017

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.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Donald Trump.
0 votes,
Mar 14, 2017

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.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
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).

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Donald Trump.
0 votes,
Mar 15, 2017

But the politician will say they are being true to their ethics and values, they just don't happen to agree with your's.

".... when common sense dictates plenty of choices that might benefit the environment anyway (like investing in research for sustainable energy sources)."

Right now the problem with sustainable energy sources is the expense, and it's that expense that causing many countries in Europe to move away from sustainable energy. Really the only reason you have so much "sustainable energy sources" in Europe are the tax credits. Add to that the fact you need massive backup systems, (the sun doesn't always shine, nor does the wind always blow) and you can quickly see that sustainable energy sources can't compete.

Not to say there is some sustainable energy sources that don't look promising, algae oil for transpiration is close to being able to compete directly with oil. (there are types of algae who oil can be converted into gasoline as well as bio-diesel). But it's only able to compete because the price of oil has going up.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Mar 15, 2017

I actually wasn't under the impression that Europe has "so much" sustainable energy sources. I'm not assuming it would solve all problems (I mean it would already be a big help if [edit: fossil fuels] would only be used by companies while the alternative would be used by households), but I think many important insights can be gained by innovation (even such a mindset by itself would be helpful - in my experience, Europeans are rather complacent about consuming energy) for example as a counterweight to the increasing overreliance on automatisation.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Donald Trump.
1 vote,
Mar 15, 2017

The EU as a whole has a renewable energy target of 20% the EU as a whole sitting right at 16% share of it's energy from renewable source (2014), but the price for that energy is high, so to help meet the targets, there are huge incentives that is tax dollars going to fund renewable energy, along with an increase the energy bills. Please note I'm not saying renewable energy is bad, and in certain places it does make sense, and there are ways to be smart about renewable energy, but and there's always a but, it's a storage problem. You can make all the energy you want but unless you can store it, it doesn't do you any good.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Mar 15, 2017

I hadn't realized there would be a storage problem; I think I heard this once before, but forgot about that.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Donald Trump.
0 votes,
Mar 16, 2017

That has been the problem that's holding alt-energy back.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Mar 16, 2017

Wasn't there also a lobby against alt-energy involved?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Donald Trump.
0 votes,
Mar 18, 2017

Not against alt-energy per se but there are many lobbyist that act in their own interest, including alt-energy

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Mar 18, 2017

I understand what you mean, however I meant the idea that alt-energy would not be given serious consideration by investors, brands, corporations and governments before its 'predecessor' would run out first. While I would agree that such lobbyist procedures are commonplace, one could argue that these too contribute to alt-energy being held back. But perhaps I took that expression too literally.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Donald Trump.
linked reply
0 votes,
Mar 19, 2017

"... alt-energy would not be given serious consideration by investors, .."

Not true, ExxonMobil is doing research into algae oil as fuel (and I would suspect so is BP and other others are as well) investors want profits and alt-energy isn't giving them much if anything back on their investment.

Now other presidents have pushing alt-energy as part of their leadership or legacy, generally by giving tax credits. That is the government is basically giving them money, or by guaranteeing loans many of the companies that the government gave loans too went bankrupt, and the taxpayers ended up paying the investors and bank, while getting nothing for their money.

Really the best thing the government could do is help with basic research and let the private market decide what works and what doesn't.

subscribe
load further replies (1)
Load more (10) in reply to Richard Wee's post (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...)
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: