Post by: Werewolf on July 16, 2008, 12:08:19 PM
More often than not pretty much everyone has an answer responding with a list of things they'd do if they were president. The list runs from realistic actions to complete fantasy.
That's all fine and good but consider that if you did actually become president that the decisions you make will impact the lives of real human beings in degrees from not even noticed to the deaths of maybe thousands or millions of people.
Rational human beings are aware of the possible consequences of decisions they make and must be able to deal with them and move on with their lives or they'd go nuts.
Could you actually live with the consequences of the many decisions a president of the USA must make on daily basis? Could you make the really tough decision that would throw people out of work, send young men to their deaths, shut down corporations, sign laws that impact our liberties, taxes, health?
I used to think I could - as I grow older I grow less and less secure in that appraisal.
How about you...
Post by: Dntsycnt on July 16, 2008, 12:16:06 PM
Post by: ilbob on July 16, 2008, 12:17:42 PM
Post by: Racehorse on July 16, 2008, 12:55:45 PM
Going to war and foreign relations, I'm not so sure I could do.
Post by: PTK on July 16, 2008, 01:44:25 PM
Post by: Tallpine on July 16, 2008, 01:53:56 PM
I'd be happy to be President. I'd veto everything and try my damnedest to put the entire government into gridlock, on purpose.
Agreed. I would do as little as possible, or even less.
Fire a bunch of people and not hire any replacements.
Ride my horse around the White House lawn
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on July 16, 2008, 01:55:14 PM
i think i'd be much better suited as the power behind the throne.... errrr... office.
Post by: Bogie on July 16, 2008, 01:57:29 PM
But then again, I'm smart enough to know what I'm dumb at - surround yourself with smart people, give credit for the good stuff, and take responsibility for the bad stuff.
Post by: Ned Hamford on July 16, 2008, 02:13:34 PM
give credit for the good stuff, and take responsibility for the bad stuff.
I think you got that reversed
Everyone knows the first executive order is to give Fistfull a newly created [unpaid] position.
Post by: FTA84 on July 16, 2008, 02:15:05 PM
Could I do it? No. I am not wealthy, connected, nor from a correct family, even though I am educated. Despite what my third grade teacher said ("Anyone can become POTUS"), I could not.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on July 16, 2008, 03:50:29 PM
Yet, you ask what I would do if I were demoted to President?
Post by: Fly320s on July 16, 2008, 04:07:12 PM
Being President is real work. If I wanted to work, I'd go get a job.
Post by: Lennyjoe on July 16, 2008, 04:14:55 PM
Quote
Everyone knows the first executive order is to give Fistfull a newly created [unpaid] position.
I'd even hire shootingstudent as press secretary. 
In a week he'd have all the reporters staying away from the white house like it had the plague. Talk about a no spin zone!
(just joshing you SS)
Post by: Werewolf on July 16, 2008, 04:25:29 PM
I, as a citizen of the United States and member of the body of "the people," tell the president what to do.
Yet, you ask what I would do if I were demoted to President?
Yet, you ask what I would do if I were demoted to President?
Mostly directed to everyone:
Actually that's not what I asked at all.
What I wanted to know is how many of you here could make the tough decisions the president has to make and live with your selves afterwards? NOT what would you do if you became president.
Perhaps I did a poor job communicating the query...
I don't think I could. Make those tough decisions - day in and day out - that is.
10 years ago I had risen to Director level at an international medical equipment manufacturing company. Even when I was starting out as a supervisor of Quality Assurance after leaving the Navy, I made decisions that impacted not only employees but customers and inevitably patients who got hooked up to the equipment we built. The impact of those decisions grew and grew as I rose up the ladder. By 1992 I was on track to become the VP of Manufacturing Operations. By 1993 I'd had enough. As much as I loved the job the impact decisions I made on people's lives just wore me down. Hiring, firing, do I halt manufacturing of a product due to a software defect with life and death implications or let it go and release a software fix later because I know the odds of the glitch occuring are low. Do I go ahead with making a product that marketing over estimated the market for, engineering comes up with a more efficient way to make that gadget, how many employees to I RIF as a result? The electrical union wants in, employees hate the idea but we have to let them talk and organize for 6 months, how to handle the morale issues, and on and on and on and on! Engineering, finance, production decisions all easy in comparison to those other things that occured because they just effect machines and do not usually directly impact the lives of real human beings. Call me a pussy if you will (I know I've called myself that) but it just got to the point where I didn't want to do it anymore.
Quit, went to Seagate and got a job as an accountant of all things. Just to have the same thing happen all over again - only this time because of my skill at automating reporting tasks it was hourly accounting clerks and eventually degreed accountants getting the axe.
Quit again to day trade. This time it was my wife - couldn't deal with the stress of not having Med Insurance.
Stopped day trading and became a financial analyst (just present the information - let others make the decisions) and a commodities trader for my next employer - but yet again my skills end up leading to people getting laid off because I turned full time reporting jobs into hour a week jobs (computers can do things so much faster than people).
Quit - and now I'm an analyst and all I do is report information for others to make decisions on. At least now I can rationalize that I'm not the decision maker - helps - a bit. At least for the time being anyway.
So no I couldn't make the tough decisions the President has to make. Like I said - maybe I'm a pussy of sorts. I didn't seem to have any problems with decision making during my 13 years in the military (3 Army, 10 Navy).
Post by: seeker_two on July 16, 2008, 04:38:52 PM
Post by: grampster on July 16, 2008, 05:39:13 PM
Post by: Scout26 on July 16, 2008, 06:07:59 PM
Scout26's Three Point Plan of Unchanging Hopelessness.
1. Find a bunch of smart people to be cabinet heads and give them one clear mission: One half will cut their departments by 20% each year. The other half will just cut their departments.
2. Then I'd veto everything else.
3. Don't like my nominees ?? I'll really grind everything to a halt.
Fistful will be my Press Secretary. That way I can say it's all his fault.
Post by: Antibubba on July 16, 2008, 08:22:09 PM
However, the people of the Republic would never elect me to do it, and my background would never let me get nominated.
The closest we'll ever get to seeing it was Ron Paul, and he never had a snowball's chance.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 16, 2008, 08:53:16 PM
The closest we'll ever get to seeing it was Ron Paul, and he never had a snowball's chance.
Had he had a competent campaign team, it would have been doable.
Post by: Bigjake on July 17, 2008, 01:44:51 AM
The closest we'll ever get to seeing it was Ron Paul, and he never had a snowball's chance.
Had he had a competent campaign team, it would have been doable.
Here we go again
.I'd have taken a page from lawdog. Draft a letter, send it to all departments. All they have to do to keep their jobs would be write back, in essay form, how THEIR particular department is constitutional.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 17, 2008, 01:50:13 AM
The closest we'll ever get to seeing it was Ron Paul, and he never had a snowball's chance.
Had he had a competent campaign team, it would have been doable.
Here we go again
.I'd have taken a page from lawdog. Draft a letter, send it to all departments. All they have to do to keep their jobs would be write back, in essay form, how THEIR particular department is constitutional.
Too easy.
I can do it. I can write a letter, in legalese, with Supreme Court precedents and all, 'proving' any department you wish to be constitutional. I could be wrong, but at least half the country would believe me on any given department.
As for my views on that other issue, let me refine the claim:
A "radical" conservalibertarian candidate [Ron Paul, Bob Barr, whoever], armed with a professional team, can win the US Presidency. The bottleneck is actually winning the GOP primaries.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on July 17, 2008, 04:02:19 AM
In my job, I make decisions that impact people's lives. I've taken freedom away from people. I've taken children from parents. I've taken property from people. But, it's on a small scale, and I have the law and the evidence to fall back on. As President, you often have "intelligence" to base a decision on. Imagine trying to decide whether or not to launch cruise missiles at a suspected missile plant in TerroristLand, knowing full well there's a hospital across the street, and that there will be collateral damage. Innocent people wil die, without question.
Could I do the job? I think so, but I'm sure that it would eat me up in the long run.
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 17, 2008, 04:07:43 AM
Would I? Maybe.
Do I want to? No, wouldn't want to subject my family to the BS.
Post by: roo_ster on July 17, 2008, 05:09:21 AM
That depends on how professional or amateurish your approach is.
I don't use the term "amateur" to mean unskilled or lacking in performance. I mean it in the original sense: for the love of it or have a strong emotional investment.
For instance, I work as an engineer and love my job (mostly) and have an emotional stake in doing well not just career-wise, but for the men who will put our products to use. In that respect, I am kinda amateurish.
I also have to help make the hard decisions: trade cost vs performance, need vs want, etc. This is a more professional attitude, realizing that resources are finite and determining if a given tool or functionality is worth not only the dollars, but the other tool/functionality sacrificed to procure this one. IOW, opportunity cost.
I understand that some guy, on the margin, might get killed because I determine that the extra smidgen of performance is not worth the dollars. I just try to do my level best to have integrity, be honest, and produce the best analysis & guidance I can. The other ten guys who live, but who would have died without the new performance, outweigh the one poor SOB who died on the margin.
I am mortal and limited. God is immortal and omnipotent. I figure I will bear a limited burden and do he best I can with what I have to work with...and then move on. God can bear the burden of all that is beyond my abilities.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 17, 2008, 05:24:42 AM
If drafted, I'd give it a shot.
But then again, I'm smart enough to know what I'm dumb at - surround yourself with smart people, give credit for the good stuff, and take responsibility for the bad stuff.
But then again, I'm smart enough to know what I'm dumb at - surround yourself with smart people, give credit for the good stuff, and take responsibility for the bad stuff.
But if you did that, the media and all the people who hated you would say you were stupid and were letting a cabal of unelected people run the govt. You have to be some sort of workaholic control freak these days for people think you are doing anything. No one recognizes leadership or delegation anymore.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 17, 2008, 05:26:01 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 17, 2008, 05:28:02 AM
Acutally would have it rolled up under the DOJ where my Atty General is in charge.
Post by: Werewolf on July 17, 2008, 05:29:59 AM
I'm probably projecting but IMO - not as many people who think they can deal with the stress of making decisions that impact millions of people's lives could actually do it for 8 years let alone 4 and come out sane.
Seems to me that in order to complete a presidency sane or at least not totally depressed you'd have to really, really believe that what you do is for the greater good and that the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences no matter how dire or be so emotionally detached from what you do as to make it not matter at all. Otherwise the emotional strain would/could really mess you up.
If I had to bet I'd guess that few if any presidents fall into the true believer category but instead are just power hungry individuals emotionally detached from the consequences of the decisions they make.
Post by: Racehorse on July 17, 2008, 05:36:16 AM
Just as an example, eliminating the IRS and moving the nation to a flat tax would hurt a lot of people. The IRS employs thousands of people, who would all lose their jobs. A lot of tax accountants would be out of a job. But it would be a huge benefit to business, freedom, the economy, and society as a whole. How would I live with putting all those people out of work? Knowing that many more jobs were created than lost and that America as a whole is better off would leave me with a clear conscience.
Of course that's all on a theoretical level. Would I really be able to handle the stress of that job? Not in a million years. I would go completely nuts.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 17, 2008, 06:05:11 AM
The most important question: Since Congress would probably not agree to abolish the BATFE, who would you appoint to run it?
The Gun Control Act of 1968 authorizes the executive to exclude a specific model or make of gun from the NFA entirely. Just write out an EO and staple a copy of the Blue Book of Gun Values to the back.
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 06:56:02 AM
See Chris and jfuser's posts. They get what I am asking perfectly.
I'm probably projecting but IMO - not as many people who think they can deal with the stress of making decisions that impact millions of people's lives could actually do it for 8 years let alone 4 and come out sane.
Seems to me that in order to complete a presidency sane or at least not totally depressed you'd have to really, really believe that what you do is for the greater good and that the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences no matter how dire or be so emotionally detached from what you do as to make it not matter at all. Otherwise the emotional strain would/could really mess you up.
If I had to bet I'd guess that few if any presidents fall into the true believer category but instead are just power hungry individuals emotionally detached from the consequences of the decisions they make.
I'm probably projecting but IMO - not as many people who think they can deal with the stress of making decisions that impact millions of people's lives could actually do it for 8 years let alone 4 and come out sane.
Seems to me that in order to complete a presidency sane or at least not totally depressed you'd have to really, really believe that what you do is for the greater good and that the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences no matter how dire or be so emotionally detached from what you do as to make it not matter at all. Otherwise the emotional strain would/could really mess you up.
If I had to bet I'd guess that few if any presidents fall into the true believer category but instead are just power hungry individuals emotionally detached from the consequences of the decisions they make.
I think I could. But then I'm an emotionally detached, heartless bastard. And since the main result of my Presidency would be revocation of a lot of years of evil I think I'd be ok.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 17, 2008, 10:19:47 AM
See Chris and jfuser's posts. They get what I am asking perfectly.
I'm probably projecting but IMO - not as many people who think they can deal with the stress of making decisions that impact millions of people's lives could actually do it for 8 years let alone 4 and come out sane.
Seems to me that in order to complete a presidency sane or at least not totally depressed you'd have to really, really believe that what you do is for the greater good and that the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences no matter how dire or be so emotionally detached from what you do as to make it not matter at all. Otherwise the emotional strain would/could really mess you up.
If I had to bet I'd guess that few if any presidents fall into the true believer category but instead are just power hungry individuals emotionally detached from the consequences of the decisions they make.
I agree with you on that. I may think I could do the job, but I doubt I would want to for any length of time. If they can't find someone better qualified than me, they aren't looking. I'm probably projecting but IMO - not as many people who think they can deal with the stress of making decisions that impact millions of people's lives could actually do it for 8 years let alone 4 and come out sane.
Seems to me that in order to complete a presidency sane or at least not totally depressed you'd have to really, really believe that what you do is for the greater good and that the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences no matter how dire or be so emotionally detached from what you do as to make it not matter at all. Otherwise the emotional strain would/could really mess you up.
If I had to bet I'd guess that few if any presidents fall into the true believer category but instead are just power hungry individuals emotionally detached from the consequences of the decisions they make.
Post by: Tallpine on July 17, 2008, 12:11:15 PM
Post by: grampster on July 17, 2008, 04:03:15 PM
As to the original post. Personally, I'd do the job. The decision making required has to do with one's ability to believe in and abide by the Constitution. My decisions would be governed by that document. In so doing my conscience would be clear. Though at times my heart might be heavy, there is honor in seeing to it that our union was sustained and nurtured by that document and those who love what it ordains.
As for the sacrifices that might be required? Well, in the pursuit of adherence to our guiding principals those sacrifices would be noble and I would see to it that a grateful nation would pay whatever price needed to be paid in order that those sacrifices were not in vain. First to those who have sacrificed and to their families. Everything else comes after that.
Post by: roo_ster on July 17, 2008, 05:25:57 PM
The most important question: Since Congress would probably not agree to abolish the BATFE, who would you appoint to run it?
The Gun Control Act of 1968 authorizes the executive to exclude a specific model or make of gun from the NFA entirely. Just write out an EO and staple a copy of the Blue Book of Gun Values to the back.
That's brilliant!
I think I need a tissue, I got something in my eye...
Post by: Tallpine on July 18, 2008, 07:22:42 AM
Post by: doc2rn on July 18, 2008, 09:19:54 AM
1) Repeal NAFTA
2) Mandate that all cars be Flex or Alternate fuel vehicles within 3 yrs.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 19, 2008, 06:36:05 AM
That is too easy. Of course and the first two things I would do are:
1) Repeal NAFTA
2) Mandate that all cars be Flex or Alternate fuel vehicles within 3 yrs.
1) Repeal NAFTA
2) Mandate that all cars be Flex or Alternate fuel vehicles within 3 yrs.
Under what authority?
Post by: Werewolf on July 19, 2008, 03:15:55 PM
That is too easy. Of course and the first two things I would do are:
1) Repeal NAFTA
2) Mandate that all cars be Flex or Alternate fuel vehicles within 3 yrs.
1) Repeal NAFTA
2) Mandate that all cars be Flex or Alternate fuel vehicles within 3 yrs.
Under what authority?
The president doesn't have near as much power as people believe. His main job is to enforce the law and put the brakes on congress with his veto power. He can influence all he wants and some of them are quite effective at it but still that's just influence.
Unfortunately the illiterate boobs in the MSM have transferred their take on the presidents power to the illiterate masses and convince them the president can just about do what ever he wants. Cult of personality is the way of things in the USA today.
Post by: DJJ on July 19, 2008, 05:58:32 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 20, 2008, 12:17:11 AM
Quote
The president doesn't have near as much power as people believe. His main job is to enforce the law and put the brakes on congress with his veto power. He can influence all he wants and some of them are quite effective at it but still that's just influence.
Well TBH, the President can throw a giant wrench into the works through his control of the Federal Agencies.
The President, under current law, can:
1. Declare a given substance to be, or not to be, a drug - so he could legalize marijuana at executive fiat.
2. Remove weapons from the NFA's purview, so he can end gun control in America in a sweep of his pen.
3. Pardon people by the thousand.
4. Veto. Veto. Veto.
5. Similar to 1 and 2 with other regulatory agencies.