Trump: Golf is Not Dead

Coach Z wrote

Agreed Trump is a chump

We don't need business leaders we need leaders that can lead period! and say have more experience leading than the current community organizer.  To be President you need executive branch experience not congressional where all they do is debate and waste time and money.  I like Jindal and Christie for thier experience as Govs.

Mr Jindal is proving to the world that he has no clue about running Louisiana as they role up a budget deficit of $1.6 BILLION.
 
Mr Christy continues to say and veto/approve whatever is in his best interest to run for President. He too, has done very little to reduce the financial pension boulder hanging over the state. He did manage to strike a deal in 2011 with the various public employee unions and then went to court this year to go back on his word about making the agreed payment. He has been out of NJ for 60 days so far this year while pretending to not run for president. NJ continues to lag the rest of the US in creating jobs.

These 2 are very similar - just a different delivery package. Neither one can run a state, how do you think they can run the country?

^ And Brownback would be in the race too if his "Conservative Experiment" in Kansas didn't blow up in his face.

mattchuck2 wrote

 

And even THAT doesn't matter because the entire government is corrupted by money anyway, so the only policies that are ever enacted are those that benefit big business and other monied interests.

FTW

That was my point we are starving for Principled Leaders .........where are they . ????

 Some rhetoric questions : Why have we been unable to ATTRACT top quality capability ??  What has caused this malaise to the point where we have been subject to "regression to the mean " talentwise for elected office . How do we break through ? When will people give a rats ass and get involved in public service again like the so called GREATEST GENERATION did ??


the Ego driven jackwagons that have so far entered the race from BOTH sides of aisle are woeful collectively and individually SUCH that the cycle of incompetance and chicanery will continue to play out ., until we can energize and recommit to involved citizenship.

And as many have said we the people as a whole are totally DISENGAGED and Shallow .......ugh  !!   Lacking such a breakthrough  , What is likely to result is the calcification  of our system to the point that we ultimately become similar to Europe

mattchuck2 wrote

^ And Brownback would be in the race too if his "Conservative Experiment" in Kansas didn't blow up in his face.

 
This guy has the crown right now.

mattchuck2 wrote

A President in this country is just a figurehead that represents whatever political party he is affiliated with. You're voting for the party, not the person, as Presidents rarely go against the party line (Obama's TPP support being an exception). Obama gives great, inspiring speeches, but if Hillary won instead of him in 2008, does anyone seriously think that the country would be THAT much different?

Somewhat agree. But disagree also. If Bush wasn't elected President (and Cheeney not VP, and no Condi and Powell)... would we have F'd up so badly in the Middle East? If Hillary was elected, I definitely do not think Progressive issues would have gained as much traction... I think Obama holds back. Hillary I see as someone that is constantly shifting her view points based on the majority of the base, I don't see her as having a solid foundation and I feel Obama was much more principled in his decisions and held back on pursing a lot of agenda items until he felt the public was on his side... whereas I think Hillary waits to see what the public thinks before making a decision. Maybe the highlights of the Obama administration would have happened with Hillary. Or maybe they wouldn't have happened at all if HIllary lost to Romney.

Ultimately, I agree that the power of the President is a little overstated. But it is a strong power and different people will do things differently, especially if they have the political clout to do so. Party lines are going to be followed to an extent, but some major decisions can be made (and not be made, hello GITMO still open despite promises otherwise) based on the person rather than the party.

And again... yea, Bush/Cheney and Iraq. That was a person (or at least two people) more than a party, IMO. Leadership can cause major problems when the leadership is strong in the wrong direction...

warp daddy wrote

That was my point we are starving for Principled Leaders .........where are they . ????

Bush was a principled leader...

Politics as usual is partially caused by the voting system. Primaries are designed to appeal to the far end "core base". And then attacks are designed to get people not to vote and degrade the opponent rather than building up the candidate. What upstanding principled leader wants their history and their family dragged through the mud? It becomes a race to the bottom.

I always come back to this: we need a better voting system. Ranked Choice Voting (aka Instant Runoff Voting) or similar systems are the way to go. In these systems, there are no "throw away" votes and people can vote with their conscience instead of strategically. Additionally, since second and third choice votes matter, there is less incentive to "go negative" and more incentive to build the candidate up. It will bring about better candidates, better voting, more voting, and more focus on the issues rather than mud slinging. Which I think will promote better discourse and discussion of issues rather than "us vs. them". The us vs. them is really killing us... the two party system has always been a hostile one but it seems so polarized right now. Or at least that is how the media would make us see it, perhaps it isn't but it looks quite divisive.

So the president has no power - well a weak president such as Carter has no power. The power in the presidency is not in legislative action but rather in the Bully Pulpit. GW proved this - he kept saying the same BS over and over until it finally stuck. The voice can carry a lot of weight if you can inspire. Us up state'rs like TRex, but he only got things done because he could rally public opinion, he was a great leader in that regard. However, he was wealthy and came from the elite republican class, he could talk to his party and get them to do things they would not have otherwise done. There is no way any of the reforms that TR put in place would have ever happened if the democratic candidate Alton Parker were elected even though most of the republican party was dragged screaming and kicking. We would all most likely be working for the Morgans and Rockefellers in some sweat shop.

Lyndon Johnson was able to make sweeping civil rights legislation changes only because he could arm twist the southern block of the democratic party which blocked it for decades, in fact he was one of the biggest blockers until he became president.

Do you need to have been in executive office to be qualified to be President - no. Truman ran a clothing store and was a 2 bit senator, Wilson didn't spend a full term as Governor of NJ - he was the President of Princeton - an academic, Andrew Jackson, another great president was a senator. It's not whether or not the President has the "experience", what you find is that the right person will rise to the occasion.  

So how does all this relate to 'The Donald", I can't take him seriously either, but I couldn't take GW or Bill seriously. We need a major change in the political system, a big shakeup. Were is Ross Perot when you need him...

ScottyJack wrote

  Greed is not good, greed kills.  

Maybe, but you wouldn't have your fat skis and high tech mtn bike without it

skimore wrote

ScottyJack wrote

  Greed is not good, greed kills.  

Maybe, but you wouldn't have your fat skis and high tech mtn bike without it

Well, that implies that ski and bike companies (and the people that work for them) make cool shit solely for profit and not because they want to produce cool shit to make those sports more fun...

Also, there's a difference between "motivated by the pressures of a competitive marketplace" and "greed". One is a perfectly acceptable and admirable trait, and the other is one of the seven deadly sins. It's like the difference between "treating people well" and "lust" or "having the big salad for lunch" and "gluttony".

PeeTex wrote

So the president has no power - well a weak president such as Carter has no power. The power in the presidency is not in legislative action but rather in the Bully Pulpit. GW proved this - he kept saying the same BS over and over until it finally stuck. The voice can carry a lot of weight if you can inspire. Us up state'rs like TRex, but he only got things done because he could rally public opinion, he was a great leader in that regard. However, he was wealthy and came from the elite republican class, he could talk to his party and get them to do things they would not have otherwise done. There is no way any of the reforms that TR put in place would have ever happened if the democratic candidate Alton Parker were elected even though most of the republican party was dragged screaming and kicking. We would all most likely be working for the Morgans and Rockefellers in some sweat shop.

Lyndon Johnson was able to make sweeping civil rights legislation changes only because he could arm twist the southern block of the democratic party which blocked it for decades, in fact he was one of the biggest blockers until he became president.

Your examples are ones where the people of the country were obviously pushing in one direction and the President just went along with changing public opinion. Progressivism in the early 1900s wasn't just TR. Civil rights in the 1960s wasn't started by LBJ. You could even argue that GW Bush was just responding to public bloodlust when he fabricated all of that "evidence" of Saddam's WMDs (wasn't it something like 65% in favor attacking Iraq in 2003?).

It's like Gay marriage for Obama. The public was on board, the courts were deciding in favor of gay people, it makes things a lot easier and better paperwork wise. All we needed was a president that would allow it instead of one that would actively oppose it.

And that's the real power of the Presidency - the ability to block shit you don't like. GW Bush used it when he screwed up stem cell research to appease his crazy base. The reason that Presidents have power is that they're either moving with the will of the people, or they're "standing athwart history, yelling Stop"

skimore wrote

ScottyJack wrote

  Greed is not good, greed kills.  

Maybe, but you wouldn't have your fat skis and high tech mtn bike without it

It's just too bad they can't be made here in the USA. My guess is that's the greed Scotty was talking about.

Quite the thread.

riverc0il wrote

Bush was a principled leader...

I was thinking about this and wondered if maybe I didn't understand the definition of "principled."  Google gave me two definitions:

prin·ci·pled
adjective

1.acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong.
"a principled politician"
synonyms: moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous, upright, upstanding, high-minded, honorable, honest, incorruptible
"she is clearly the most principled among the candidates"

2.based on a given set of rules.
"a coherent and principled approach"

Not sure that helps me. Unless maybe you are referring to definition #2.

I remember feeling that GWB broke (what is to me) the cardinal rule of the presidency.  ANY president can go on TV and say "look, I have information that I can't share, but we are in grave danger.  You have to trust me, we have to go to war."

Most people accept that there is intelligence that can't be shared publicly, and are forced to trust the president in that situation.  No one wants to tie the president's hand when we are in danger of a nuclear attack.  Politics is politics, but IMO you can't bs about that. If we can't trust the prez on that kind of thing, we're screwed. I'm not a historian for sure, but I don't remember any president on either side of the aisle playing that card to get what he wanted.

skimore wrote

ScottyJack wrote

  Greed is not good, greed kills.  

Maybe, but you wouldn't have your fat skis and high tech mtn bike without it

yes, it is possible to have your cake and eat it too.  product evolution does not have too, nor does it come at the expensive of civil society.  

My Voile - manufactured in Utah
My Bridos - manufactured in Switzerland by a dude who moved there from American and started his own company

My Yeti - was manufactured in Colorado (they've since moved manufacturing overseas) so my next bike will mostly likely be a GG which also happens to be manufactured in Colorado.  

there are thousands of examples of businesses where brave people stepped away from the Trump mentality to create a better more sustainable choice.

just this morning I helped my friend unload his veggies for the local farmers market.  We are CSA members with his farm Fledging Crow.  A fine example of a healthy non greedy approach to life.

don't be a snowSheep - open your eyes and be part of the solution bro!  

campgottagopee wrote

skimore wrote

ScottyJack wrote

  Greed is not good, greed kills.  

Maybe, but you wouldn't have your fat skis and high tech mtn bike without it

It's just too bad they can't be made here in the USA. My guess is that's the greed Scotty was talking about.

They can be made and are made in the U.S. or Europe but people like to pay less for stuff so they favor companies that are making  cheaper stuff in Asia where worker protection and environmental laws are almost non existent if run by Asian companies.  Major U.S. and European companies even for Asian plants they operate and have much higher standards, pay better and treat their off shore plant employees to western standards.  I've seen this first hand.

It's not that companies are greedy it's that the consumer votes with thier wallet so they are the greedy ones for wanting to buy more worthless crap.   I have learned it pays long term to pay for quality.  The vast majority will not ever see that light.

Coach Z wrote

It's not that companies are greedy it's that the consumer votes with thier wallet so they are the greedy ones for wanting to buy more worthless crap.   I have learned it pays long term to pay for quality.  The vast majority will not ever see that light.

Coach Z wrote

Major U.S. and European companies even for Asian plants they operate and have much higher standards, pay better and treat their off shore plant employees to western standards.  I've seen this first hand.

Really?  I think you are seeing things through patriotic rose colored glasses.  I work in IT.  The vast majority of our "work" is done off-shore.  Similar to any other manufacturing operation, our off-shore teams manufacture the application code used in our day-to-day operations.  We pay them 1/5 the wage of an on-shore developer, and we are often expected to treat them like work animals.  I'm not saying this is true of all operations, but I will say my first hand experience is very different than yours.

Bush lite had issue with telling the truth ,.

 To wit : WMD , Budget busting  ,running up the deficit when in fact he inherited a surplus from Slick Willy .....so in my book Bush Lite was far from principled .His latent need to top daddy and beat his ole man's nemesis SAAAAAAD HAM Hussien is yet another questionable lapse in  principled leadership ...just saying. RIV .  CHEEEEENY oh man that is another level of SAD 😈

fading away ? some pretty telling numbers.http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/the-death-of-golf-20150625