Mike Pence for President - 2017

[zoogs]

Hillary is fine. She's no more or less flawed than a normal politician despite the decades-long smear campaign that's yielded no substance but has nonetheless been so effective at tainting her. Biden would have been fine; the public overlooks his lifelong ambitions and career politician status, anyway. Both have come to adopt substantially more progressive platforms in recent years.

 

Ryan could have been fine if he hadn't defined himself the way he did in the 2016 election cycle. The same "coulda" maybe applies to Pence, too. We found out about these guys because they made their call on Trump. I can accept that people I completely disagree with on politics are nonetheless "fine" in this basic competency sense. That's important.

 

Sanders, Warren, Kasich, Jeb, McCain, Graham, McMullin, either Paul, Sasse, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker. These and any number of other people -- there are different ways I disagree with each and I'm sure very legitimate criticisms as well. As maybe someone mentioned recently, *anybody* holding the office is dangerous in a lot of ways; comes with the territory. Yet these and others would be within the range of normal, the kind of people who have built or are in the process of building strong resumes for running the executive branch at some point.

 

If we could take it for granted that Americans will debate policy and elect such people to office, then I think we could all worry a lot less about how "fine" we'll be in the grand scheme of things. Alas, we aren't there.

[JJ Husker]

I'm not claiming that the few we're dealing with now aren't special cases. Yes, they are markedly worse than the others. But we've set a pathetically low bar if those others you've listed are to be considered acceptable.

 

I was just about to type, the standard can't be to compare others to Trump, and if they're better, then somehow they're acceptable. But, ya know what, that is exactly what we've been doing for years. Every election cycle garners us worse and worse human beings. That's where comparing politicians to their worst peers and predecessors has gotten us.

 

I don't know how we turn the tide but it needs to change. And it has nothing to do with policy positions or if they are left or right. Way too many of them are nothing more than lying, cheating, immoral wastes of skin. The majority of them would kill their own mothers if it assured them of reelection.

 

They suck. We've failed.

 

Edit- Sorry, that was a bit of frustration boiling over.

Not ALL of them are terrible. In fact, most of them likely started out with good intentions. The problem would be the corrupt system that rewards the behavior we see from our politicians. But the simple fact is, we all personally know way better people than the typical person who has been in public service for any length of time. I just see lying, cheating, stealing and all these rampant moral problems as deal breakers. You say a person like Hillary is acceptable, I do not feel that way. We can and must do much better. If we'll settle for that, we'll get much, much worse. The proof is residing at 1600 right now.

[zoogs]

I threw out a lot of names and not all of them have come under the scrutiny of a national campaign, but *independent* of Trump you still have a lot of quite accomplished people who would also run competent administrations. They're the sorts that deserve scrutiny (as any president would) and how you feel about them depends on whether your own politics align. That's what I'd call normal and fine. These aren't chumps who don't know what they're doing, haven't run for public office before, and can't navigate the political minefield. Apart from uncommon image savvy and incredible oratory skills, President Obama is not *that* different from this group and his presidency was far from perfect. In fact, in many ways withering criticism is appropriate.

 

Still, these other politicians are not by any reasonable measure objectively "terrible" -- again, political alignment aside.

 

This rampant cynicism that says they are serves only to elevate guys like Trump in comparison. It's therefore promoted by the same characters.

 

Analogy: there is so much you can criticize about the NYT, how they operate, their mistakes, etc. Or pick a less prestigious outlet, perhaps. But independent of Breitbart they are all still legitimate, quality establishments. Don't give into the cynicism, which isn't to say there's no need for ever higher standards and scrutiny.

[Moiraine]

I don't think Clinton is acceptable but she was no worse than most members of congress. She just had a spotlight on her.

 

 

I think Sanders/Obama/Biden/Warren/McCain are all good people

[zoogs]

I've sort of forgotten how the election showed people like McCain, too. Between Clinton and McCain one of them stuck by Trump through every episode prior to November. Does that expediency make him a better person, or did it just help him keep that Senate seat he's had for how many terms now?

[JJ Husker]

We may be using 2 different sets of criteria. I was commenting on their character and scruples and you seem to be talking about running a competent administration. I don't doubt that a lot of immoral criminals couldn't run our government somewhat competently. Heck, just look at Congress for the proof. But rather, I am complaining that these are exactly the type of people who gravitate to office and/or convert to that behavior. When I say worthless human beings, I mean just that. Again, running a competent administration would sure be something nice right now but the even deeper problem is that most of those who aspire to that level are just plain scumbags.

[Moiraine]

I feel the opposite way...

 

Running an administration that is good for the country* is far more important than whether the President is a scumbag or not. Hence the Clinton stuff in the 90s not actually being a big deal.

 

* - and a part of that is not humiliating us internationally. Trump does that (along with lots of other things that make his admin bad). I think Trump's stupidity is far more of a detriment than his scumbaggery.

 

Anyhow, the problem is it's harder for a scumbag to run an administration that's good for the country because scumbags are selfish.

[Cdog923]

Pence would be an absolute garbage pick for President under normal circumstances. We are nowhere near normal circumstances, though.

 

In terms of the line of succession, there is, quite literally, no one of particular value at any point.

[BigRedBuster]

Whomever takes office next, will need to spend a lot of time just mending fences. We need that person in the office that can speak to both sides in a manner that one side doesn't feel like second class citizens.

What I saw of Kasich last night lifted him up on a pedestal for me. The guy is still a conservative voice but compassionate towards everyone and the country.

He is what we need.

[Fru]

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders." -George Carlin

 

The problem is us.

[Fru]

Pence would be an absolute garbage pick for President under normal circumstances. We are nowhere near normal circumstances, though.

 

In terms of the line of succession, there is, quite literally, no one of particular value at any point.

 

Orrin Hatch would probably be the best choice. Just typing that made me slightly vomit.

[teachercd]

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders." -George Carlin

 

The problem is us.

Oh my goodness...does this fit so many.

[TGHusker]

Whomever takes office next, will need to spend a lot of time just mending fences. We need that person in the office that can speak to both sides in a manner that one side doesn't feel like second class citizens.

What I saw of Kasich last night lifted him up on a pedestal for me. The guy is still a conservative voice but compassionate towards everyone and the country.

He is what we need.

Agree. Or even Romney would be a 1000x better than some of the names thrown out. (If Romney hadn't blown that 2nd debate, we'd wouldn't be going through this now). However, neither are in the line and cannot be considered. It is what it is.

[JJ Husker]

I feel the opposite way...

Running an administration that is good for the country* is far more important than whether the President is a scumbag or not. Hence the Clinton stuff in the 90s not actually being a big deal.

* - and a part of that is not humiliating us internationally. Trump does that (along with lots of other things that make his admin bad). I think Trump's stupidity is far more of a detriment than his scumbaggery.

Anyhow, the problem is it's harder for a scumbag to run an administration that's good for the country because scumbags are selfish.

Well, that's not really the opposite of how I feel. I just want both; a competent administration and decent people. I just believe if you start with worthwhile human beings, the competent administration is the easy part. If you're a liar, cheat, thief who is primarily concerned with staying in power and aspiring to higher offices, it's pretty hard to set your character flaws aside and do the right thing.

 

The problem is that right now we, for the very first time I think, have a President that is not competent and who has a dysfunctional administration. So yeah, competency may seem more critical now. But that really should be the easy part of it. Politics aside, every prior President has been competent and run a viable government even if some of them had serious character flaws. Are there no good people left that want to go into public service? Hell, it's not "public service" anymore, it's serve myself at the expense of the public. That's what I want fixed.

[Moiraine]

I basically agree with you. Was just nitpicking the one part.

 

Baaically - Trump is not good at either thing. He's an incompetent scumbag. And there are others like him in congress who don't have a spotlight on them.