This marks the first in a series of posts. For the sake of my own sanity I'll denote which blog posts will consist of what. Let's be honest -no one likes talking about politics (unless they're masochistic).
1. Political Banter Part 1: Hiring a President
This will cover as unbiased a perspective as I can give over each of the potential candidates, the things they claim make them qualified for the position, and the way they actually measure up in terms of living up to those claims.
2. Political Banter Part 2: Policy v. Profit
There's a tendency for divide WITHIN the democratic and republican party. This divide centers around the issue of Economic Policy and Handling Social Issues. A person can therefore side with Republicans on economic policy, but disagree on Social Policies. This issue conflicts voters and makes it hard to discern which part to affiliate with.
3. Political Banter Part 3: Policy v. Leader
In this first blog post I'll discuss the different leaders/nominees elected for presidency. In the 3rd blog post I'll debate which is ultimately more important: Voting on the Beliefs you with to have upheld by the person filling the position (aka the Policies they'll be representing) or the Person themselves in terms of leadership and other qualities.
So let's begin with the first -and hardest undertaking -which is discerning between the 3 candidates.
Candidate 1 = Trump
Candidate 2 = Hillary
Candidate 3 = Bernie (Yes he still exists)
I'm going to go by Republican standards here and Trump's main platform of legitimacy is founded on the claim that he is a good businessman. This approach sees America like a business with a good CEO at its head leading the way. So on the basis Trump himself has bolstered himself on -let's analyze whether or not Trump IS a good CEO/businessman. If he is then he may very well be a good leader for the USA by this ideological perspective.
I'm not going to go into Trumps past. He's won some and he's lost some. Recent lost with his University for example, but I'm pretty sure his hotels and golf courses are doing just fine.
Instead I'm going to look at his business STYLE. The KIND of companies he tends to run and the WAY he tends to run them.
First-off, what does he run? He runs his OWN businesses. This is an interesting thing nobody really seems to notice or take into consideration. So ask yourself this: If I had my OWN company that I was then the CEO of, would I run it the same way or in the same style as I would if I was the CEO of someone ELSE'S company?
The answer is NO. Most people if they ran their own business would probably do as Trump does and DELIGATE most of the work. You're real work was in the founding of the company itself. Placing money on the line and taking the risk of creating a new venture. That was your work. As far as running the ship goes, it is easier to put someone else at the helm and then have them come to you with the updates on how the business is running. When you're the CEO of a company someone else created -you're the one who has to prove your worth (or else get fired) and measure up to the standards of the board and the founder. Trump would never fire himself from a business. It would either sink or swim and either way he would never place the blame on himself -only those Running the business for him.
So in essence Trump is more of a Founder than a true CEO. He distantly oversees multiple projects and companies that he started but does not run himself. Kind of like planting seeds in the ground and having a farmer come and tend to them so they grow.
This is fine if that's the kind of Founder you are for that particular form of business. Unfortunately AMERICA -even if it was a business -would be someone ELSE'S -not Trumps that he founded. His policy of finding people to actually man the ship while he oversees other fleets might not be the best approach for someone in that particular position. The President is more of a hands-on-role, not a figure head.
The second issue is Trump's STYLE of "CEO"/Leader. Let's be honest there are 2 kinds of CEOs:
1. There's the kind I have encountered who feel their main job is to oversee everything but ultimately let other lead in their own departments. They'll speak up every once in a while but for the most part don't actually do much. Their primary concern is making the founder/stock holder's happy by focusing on PROFIT more than anything. Issues that arise within the company take a backseat to the foremost concern for money. That's what they track that's what they pay attention to. Not much else. They are NOT very savvy when it comes to understanding things in depth.
2. The second kind of CEO is fairly similar to the first, except the fact that they make a point to find out the internal workings of the company to a greater degree. Although they too are concerned with profit, it is surprisingly NOT their primary concern. Their concern is seeing that the company has LONGEVITY. That it is functioning right and working properly. They believe that if the company itself is functioning well within, profits will comes as a RESULT.
Trump is the first kind of CEO. He doesn't seem to have much of a clue as far as details and a greater depth in understanding are concerned. Having insight to infrastructure and the way things work also not his strong suite. And so it has to be asked, does the President of the USA need to be the second kind of CEO or is he/she better off being like the first kind.
Given the President needs to have a good line of site on the issues facing Americans in this country -be in the education system or unemployment rate -it would be better to have CEO type 2. The President is also in charge of READING a great deal of documentation that comes to his/her oval office when new bills and legislation are created and need to be reviewed and possibly approved of. This helps keep the branches in check.
It's kind of hard to fathom Trump, who clearly likes to orate and talk, sitting a desk for hours on end READING very boring, long, technical documentation. The President kinds to be like a lawyer understanding legislative language and documentation -not just a CEO.
You have to understand, even before I go into this candidate's situation I'm like, DAMN. There's soooo much. Damn...
Hillary does not present herself as a businesswoman. So we can't really put her in that boat, even though you could argue she would probably tend to be more like CEO type 2 -which is preferred. she has a clearer line of sight on some of the issues and is clearly marked by her intelligence.
But Hillary is not a businesswoman -she is a politician and so it is on THAT basis that we'll assess her standing.
For those who don't know Hillary has served as Secretary of State and is married to a former President. No one can say she isn't familiar with politics or being a politician. She has been in that arena.
The primary issues I see with Hillary are the problems that have arisen when she HAS served as a member of the governmental system.
Issue #1 It is ILLEGAL for people in government positions -especially those who have influencing power over policies and legislation -to take BRIBES from individuals or organizations for personal gain. Hillary HAS taken bribes form various banks in this way for years. The amount of money she has been taking is in the MILLIONS. This is kind of an issue. It's an issue for 2 reasons.
1) Hillary says she has not been bought and paid for by the banking system and will unbiasedly lead to "take on Wallstreet" as the President
2) IT'S ILLEGAL!!! Cannot emphasize that one enough. It's also unethical. But still... mostly ILLEGAL.
Issues #2 I'm not going to get into Benghazi. I'm just not. At this point it's the tip of an iceberg and I'd rather just take the iceberg itself head on.
The Clinton Foundation Scandal. This has numerous layers to it, so let's tread softly through them lest any piece of this clusterf*ck be left out.
- What the hell does the Clinton Foundation itself actually DO??? I know what St.Jude does. I know what the Humane Society does. Off hand -despite the millions this foundation is taking in and could spend on marketing its cause -does anyone know what this foundation actually accomplishes as a "non-profit"? NO? Don't you think that's kind of an issue???!
- This scandal INVOLVES a non-profit. How f*d up do you have to be to drag a non-profit foundation with YOUR NAME on it into this mess???
- The scandal involves numerous countries -particularly known for committing inhumane atrocities against its citizens -donating millions of dollars to this foundation. Think about that for a second. Saundi Arabia -as a COUNTRY -donated to the Clinton Foundation. That's like if Sweden randomly decided to donate to the Vladimir Putin Foundation for "no good reason". Don't you think that seems a bit odd?
-Then just by a random term of happenstance Hillary then brought about governmental action in FAVOR of those countries and some of the things they wanted via the USA. Isn't that Strange...
Even people with only 2 molecules floating around in their brain would know -this is a BRIBE. Hillary received bribes from countries with human rights violations that went through the Clinton Foundation as a front to then pass policies in their favor. DAMN.
Issue #3 She is currently under INVESTIGATION by the FBI for these crimes because, guess what, they're ILLEGAL. If this is what she does with the position of governmental authority she has already been granted, why the hell would people be on board with giving her MORE power??? This lack of transparency and devotion to money over clear ethics is kind of disconcerting... and ILLEGAL.
We've never had this situation presented to us where we have to now decide as a people: Can a person legally run as a presidential candidate if it's pretty clear they're going to be prosecuted for a crime at some point? Like if a presidential candidate was accused of murder, and under investigation for it, what's our official policy on that? Do we just wait until they are being prosecuted. Or do we wait until a ruling is made? What do we do? Personally I think if someone's under investigation that's not good, but if someone is being prosecuted (which means they have enough evidence to go on to proceed with a court case) then YAH that person should be disqualified from the running for PRESIDENCY.
Let's be honest if you're a democrat and Bernie didn't exist on this planet at this point you'd probably be rooting for that generic looking cardboard cut-out of a politician named McSomething or other. He seriously looked like an iStock photo of a politician, but no one would care -that's who the dems would be rallying behind right now.
Quick research on Google. Martin O'Malley. Because that was going to bug me.
Quick question, which one is Martin and which one is a generic image of a politician I pulled off of Pixaby.com (iStock charges for its pictures):
Anyways... So let's be honest most democrats would side with Bernie at this point if he wasn't Bernie and he was next to ANY democratic candidate still in the running. Most sane people don't want Hillary as President because (the main issue is) they can't TRUST her.
Bernie on the other hand has his own qualifications for the Presidency. In spite of being a politician he doesn't actually qualify himself based on that past experience. Instead his platform is founded on the understanding that: Who he WAS is who he IS. Meaning what he's stood for and supported has been consistent whereas with other candidates it hasn't been.
And in all fairness -he's right. He was supporting gay people WAYYYYY before it was cool to do that (which is pretty gutsy). He was also there during the Civil Rights movement supporting MLK. This is generally why a lot of democrats like Bernie. He has no real skeletons in his closet and he's pretty straight-forward when it comes to his policies (both economic and social).
It's just that a some people don't like his financial plans, they think he's a little too liberal for their taste, and the media's done a good job of trying to sweep his existence under the rug.
The main question I have after all of this is: How many people do we have in this country? How MANY people. Because it seems pretty freakin crowded to me and yet these are the only 3 options we're handed for the President of the United States. At this point I think most people agree that if we put on online application for the position of President on Monster.com we'd come up with some better potential candidates than what's been coughed up for us at this point. DAMN...