What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2024 POTUS WINNER: Worst President Ever? (1 Viewer)

Actually, I think it’s possible that this is where we are headed - especially if the last two winners are the 2 candidates.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right now almost as bad as Carter but not as bad as Biden or Trump. More in the Bush Jr category. If he/she doesnt do something about the oil/gas/inflation costs or manage the border in a better way than for sure worst of all-time. Like what they are doing with COvid as deaths have gone down. Good thing they did what they said they would do regarding masks and vaccines.

 
Let's see. 

Bush was the worst ever

Obama was the worst ever

Trump was the worst ever.

Biden is the worst ever.

So yeah probably the next president will be the worst ever. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I think we should all give President Rogan a fair shot.
Click to expand...
No, Rogan’s idea is that the country is simply to large now to govern by one individual.  He’s suggested many times a panel.  I will say while I’m not sure I’m 100% on board with it yet the idea has a lot of merit. 

 
dkp993 said:
No, Rogan’s idea is that the country is simply to large now to govern by one individual.  He’s suggested many times a panel.  I will say while I’m not sure I’m 100% on board with it yet the idea has a lot of merit. 
Click to expand...


Is the idea to have the Executive Branch run by a group similar to the SC?

 
dkp993 said:
No, Rogan’s idea is that the country is simply to large now to govern by one individual.  He’s suggested many times a panel.  I will say while I’m not sure I’m 100% on board with it yet the idea has a lot of merit. 
Click to expand...


A panel?  You mean like The House and Senate where no one can get along and it's all about teams?

 
BladeRunner said:
A panel?  You mean like The House and Senate where no one can get along and it's all about teams?
Click to expand...
Not really.  More like a 3-5 person group, still elected by the people but on different election cycles. More similar in its management to the board of a large company.  

 
dkp993 said:
Not really.  More like a 3-5 person group, still elected by the people but on different election cycles. More similar in its management to the board of a large company.  
Click to expand...


How would that work anymore effectively than the House and Senate?  With one dude, at least you have someone in charge, making decisions.   Well, except for the Biden administration where it's a secret cabal really making the decisions.

Also, who gets to select this panel of 3-5 people?  Is this kind of like Politburo?

 
BladeRunner said:
How would that work anymore effectively than the House and Senate?  With one dude, at least you have someone in charge, making decisions.   Well, except for the Biden administration where it's a secret cabal really making the decisions.

Also, who gets to select this panel of 3-5 people?  Is this kind of like Politburo?
Click to expand...
As I said originally I’m not 100% behind the idea as I recognize there are flaws (though any system does) but I do think it’s an interesting thought experiment and I absolutely agree with the premise that it’s too much for one person.  When garnering 52 or 53 percent of the vote is considered a landslide to me that’s indicative of a flaw in the system.

As for your second paragraph I answered that in my last post.  They are elected by the people. 

 
dkp993 said:
As I said originally I’m not 100% behind the idea as I recognize there are flaws (though any system does) but I do think it’s an interesting thought experiment and I absolutely agree with the premise that it’s too much for one person.  When garnering 52 or 53 percent of the vote is considered a landslide to me that’s indicative of a flaw in the system.

As for your second paragraph I answered that in my last post.  They are elected by the people. 
Click to expand...


So, 3-5 but is there a "First Among Equals" in that 3-5?  Who negotiates with other countries?  Who is the "face"?  Who has 1 on 1 meetings with leaders of other countries?

Is this done anywhere else in the world?  I'm having a hard time thinking of any countries that do this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
Not really.  More like a 3-5 person group, still elected by the people but on different election cycles. More similar in its management to the board of a large company.  
Click to expand...
Sounds more or less like electing Cabinet members independently.  Of course, we'd still need someone to have decision making capacity when those cabinet members disagree, I suppose.

 
Rich Conway said:
Sounds more or less like electing Cabinet members independently.  Of course, we'd still need someone to have decision making capacity when those cabinet members disagree, I suppose.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm.....someone like, I don't know, a President?  Or something like that?  ;)

 
Rich Conway said:
Sounds more or less like electing Cabinet members independently.  Of course, we'd still need someone to have decision making capacity when those cabinet members disagree, I suppose.
Click to expand...
It would have to be an odd number of people and the majority decision is the decision, just like with our Supreme court.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
Not really.  More like a 3-5 person group, still elected by the people but on different election cycles. More similar in its management to the board of a large company.  
Click to expand...


At first blush, I like the concept.  You could even use RCV to get your top 5.  Seems likely you would always end up with 2D/2R with a 5th tiebreaker.  Could alleviate some of the vitriol that we get through having single person.  Also, it would head off most concerns that folks would have over a single person becoming too powerful or in the case of the last 2 - one that is willing to break norms and one that appears to not have his full faculties.

You could get rid of the VP role - add 3 more elected roles.

Nobody would ever go for it.

 
BladeRunner said:
Hmmmm.....someone like, I don't know, a President?  Or something like that?  ;)
Click to expand...
Imo all one has to do is look at the last 20+yrs to see what we’re doing just isn’t working.  It doesn’t matter who’s in office, red team or blue, half the country is pissed and the division is getting wider and wider.  Congress continues to be less and less functional and the wealth gaps get larger and larger.  We’ve got SERIOUS institutional issues Meanwhile we are waiting for someone to ride in on the white horse and unite everyone.  It’s not happening.  We’ve got to force compromise and solution based decisions.   

 
dkp993 said:
No, Rogan’s idea is that the country is simply to large now to govern by one individual.  He’s suggested many times a panel.  I will say while I’m not sure I’m 100% on board with it yet the idea has a lot of merit. 
Click to expand...


Narrator: "It has no merit."

And, for the record, the country is not now governed by one individual.  (And if anyone insists that it is one individual - a better case can be made that Manchin is that individual, not Biden...)

 
AAABatteries said:
At first blush, I like the concept.  You could even use RCV to get your top 5.  Seems likely you would always end up with 2D/2R with a 5th tiebreaker.  Could alleviate some of the vitriol that we get through having single person.  Also, it would head off most concerns that folks would have over a single person becoming too powerful or in the case of the last 2 - one that is willing to break norms and one that appears to not have his full faculties.

You could get rid of the VP role - add 3 more elected roles.

Nobody would ever go for it.
Click to expand...
For sure those are some possible positives of the idea.

re the bolded. 100%. It’s just a fun thought exercise. 

 
dkp993 said:
Imo all one has to do is look at the last 20+yrs to see what we’re doing just isn’t working.  It doesn’t matter who’s in office, red team or blue, half the country is pissed and the division is getting wider and wider.  Congress continues to be less and less functional and the wealth gaps get larger and larger.  We’ve got SERIOUS institutional issues Meanwhile we are waiting for someone to ride in on the white horse and unite everyone.  It’s not happening.  We’ve got to force compromise and solution based decisions.   
Click to expand...


But that doesn't change the fact that even in a "panel" someone has to be the final arbiter.  Someone like - say it with me - a President?

 
dkp993 said:
No, Rogan’s idea is that the country is simply to large now to govern by one individual.  He’s suggested many times a panel.  I will say while I’m not sure I’m 100% on board with it yet the idea has a lot of merit. 
Click to expand...
I think Lebanon had something like that for awhile. Yugoslavia, too. Both countries descended into bloody civil wars shortly after those systems were implemented, but maybe you could spin it the way leftists used to describe communism: It didn't fail, it's just never truly been tried.  :P

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I think Lebanon had something like that for awhile. Yugoslavia, too. Both countries descended into bloody civil wars shortly after those systems were implemented, but maybe you could spin it the way leftists used to describe communism: It didn't fail, it's just never truly been tried.  :P
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to spin anything, as I’ve said now 3 times I’m not behind the idea, just thought it was something fun to think about.   With that said, I don’t know anything about the 2 examples you gave but will look into them as I’d like to see what failed.  Thanks.  

 
dkp993 said:
Sure, ok. I disagree, but cool you aren’t down with the idea. No sweat.
Click to expand...


A "panel" of the executive branch reminds me too much of "junta" in tin-pot, 3rd world countries.  Ultimately, there has to be ONE person making the final decision so we might as well just have a President.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ignatiusjreilly said:
I think Lebanon had something like that for awhile. Yugoslavia, too. Both countries descended into bloody civil wars shortly after those systems were implemented, but maybe you could spin it the way leftists used to describe communism: It didn't fail, it's just never truly been tried.  :P
Click to expand...


No, seriously, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Castro - they all got it wrong.  I know how to do it right.  :)

 
BladeRunner said:
A "panel" of the executive branch reminds me too much of "junta" in tin-pot, 3rd world countries.  Ultimately, there has to be ONE person making the final decision so we might as well just have a President.
Click to expand...
Again I disagree in concept.  Major billion dollar companies run successfully with a board making the decisions.  I think there’s possible merit to the idea but it certainly needs to be flushed out further.  

Again I think the idea is worth some thought (hell almost any idea is at this point) as what we’re currently doing is failing.  

 
dkp993 said:
I’m not trying to spin anything, as I’ve said now 3 times I’m not behind the idea, just thought it was something fun to think about.   With that said, I don’t know anything about the 2 examples you gave but will look into them as I’d like to see what failed.  Thanks.  
Click to expand...
Relax, GB, just joking around. I actually was planning on posting a more substantive response to your idea, but got distracted. (And please, no one tell my employer that I just referred to work I had to do for my job as a "distraction" from posting in the political section of a magic football message board).

Anyway, what I was going to say is that I agree we need structural reforms, which is something a lot of people overlook. I hear people say all the time that the US "needs" a third party without reckoning with the reasons we don't currently have one: our winner-take-all electoral system makes voting third party a losing bet. If you want more parties, you need to support more reforms like ranked choice voting or multi-member districts or whatever will make it possible for people to support alternate parties without empowering their opponents.

So I don't know if this panel thing would work -- though I strongly suspect it wouldn't -- but I think it's the right kind of approach. The question to ask yourself is, what are the structural factors that are poisoning/paralyzing our current system, and what reforms would ameliorate those factors?

 
Mile High said:
Let's see. 

Bush was the worst ever

Obama was the worst ever

Trump was the worst ever.

Biden is the worst ever.

So yeah probably the next president will be the worst ever. 
Click to expand...
Probably been like this since day 1. These dudes used to duel.

 
BladeRunner said:
I'm not really looking at 2024.  @AAAABatteries can we get a 2028 poll in here?
Click to expand...


We need to survive the 2024 president for there to be a 2028.  The way things are looking I'm not sure that is a bet worth taking.

BladeRunner said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
but maybe you could spin it the way leftists used to describe communism: It didn't fail, it's just never truly been tried.  :P
Click to expand...
No, seriously, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Castro - they all got it wrong.  I know how to do it right.  :)
Click to expand...
Don't leave out Peter and then James as described in Acts.      Those I think help point to the problem.  Its not that communism doesn't work but instead that it doesn't scale.  A tiny, close knit community and communism is fine.  Anything much more than that and it all breaks down and requires harsh authoritarianism to keep up the pretenses that things are working.  Which gets us back to that 2024 winner....

 
Mile High said:
Let's see. 

Bush was the worst ever

Obama was the worst ever

Trump was the worst ever.

Biden is the worst ever.

So yeah probably the next president will be the worst ever. 
Click to expand...
Don't forget the part where we retroactively decide the previous guy wasn't so bad, but only in relation to the current guy. So conservatives who spent the entire Clinton presidency telling us he was the devil suddenly decided during the Obama Administration that he wasn't so bad, because he at least signed welfare reform or something. Similar with liberals and Bush/Trump. Haven't heard it as much so far with Biden/Obama, but it's coming.

What I find really scary is that this means a decade from now we Democrats will be saying, "I never liked Trump, but compared to co-Presidents Diamond and Silk he was at least a man you could do business with."

 
AAABatteries said:
I'd love to see Trump, Biden, Pence, Harris and say Bernie/Kasich forced to work together on some level.
Click to expand...


It would never happen, but I would like to see house and congress have equal seatys from both sides.  50-50 split. Also would like to the SCOTUS be the same way.  Then let members work across the aisle instead of having one side or the other ram their agendas through.

 
Da Guru said:
It would never happen, but I would like to see house and congress have equal seatys from both sides.  50-50 split. Also would like to the SCOTUS be the same way.  Then let members work across the aisle instead of having one side or the other ram their agendas through.
Click to expand...
In today's climate if one chooses to vote with the other side on any issue they are no longer in their original party.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Team Blue Strategist: Gavin Newsom Should Be Biden's Replacement For POTUS 2024 (12/14/21 17:44 PST)
Replies
27
Views
1K
LawFitz
LawFitz
GordonGekko
WSJ: Democrats Suddenly Discover POTUS Joe Biden Is 79 Years Old (7/8/22 17:51 PST)
Replies
48
Views
2K
Prinefan
P
Bogart
The Perfect FBG President
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top