Two Very Different Styles Of Leadership

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in

What Kind Of Leader Would You Prefer?

  • Angry President Who Speaks Mostly In Incomprehensible Monosyllables?

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Friendly Prime Minister Who Speaks Mostly In Empty Platitudes?

    Votes: 8 88.9%
  • Total voters
    9
revsdd

revsdd

Well-Known Member
I've been thinking about the difference in style between Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau. The former very over the top, often angry and impulsive who gets people's blood boiling and not very eloquent; the latter very friendly and seemingly approachable, who soothes people with comforting and optimistic words. But both of whose words are often devoid of much substance.
 
You left out the third option: A sane intelligent leader who speaks clearly and eloquently to the issues of the day. Too bad there's a shortage of those right now.

Of the options presented, the latter. I can largely ignore someone like that because the system will just quietly tick along while they spout their platitudes. The former is hard to ignore when he's arguing with allies, pulling out of treaties, threatening people, and generally playing bully on the street corner. The system can't just quietly tick along because he keeps threatening the system.

As you say, both lack substance, but at least the latter won't f*** things up as badly.
 
If one was more effective than the other it would be no contest.

Since there is reason to believe that neither are as effective as anyone has a right to expect I chose to cast a vote for someone who, at least on the surface, is less inclined to be punitive or vengeful.

When you have the authority of either the last thing the public needs is for you to also lack anything approaching self-discipline.
 
Well one seems to be leading a party that is allowed input, the other appears to be being running his own show without influence from other elected officials.
 
Hmmmm... tweedle dee or tweedle dum?

"If you are confronted with two evils, thus the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Those who denounce the moral fallacy of this argument are usually accused of a germ-proof moralism which is alien to political circumstances, of being unwilling to dirty their hands. … The weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil." Hannah Arendt, in Responsibility and Judgment (2003)
 
GeoFee said:
Hmmmm... tweedle dee or tweedle dum?

"If you are confronted with two evils, thus the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Those who denounce the moral fallacy of this argument are usually accused of a germ-proof moralism which is alien to political circumstances, of being unwilling to dirty their hands. … The weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil." Hannah Arendt, in Responsibility and Judgment (2003)
Click to expand...

A highlight in Master and Commander ... perhaps anachronism given the setting! Hard bread weevils?
 
When it comes to a leader, I prefer one who gets the job done well moreso than their style of doing it although the two are linked.

So I would take angry but getting beneficial stuff done over wanting to appear nice and friendly. With the poll options though, I'll go with friendly.
 
I voted for the president because despite his many flaws we share the same stance on the abortion issue.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
Do you share a stance on the bombing of babies issue? or on the mass starvation of babies in Yemen and Africa?
Click to expand...

This. Just this. What is the point of saving a few unborn babies at home if you then kill dozens or hundreds who are born with your actions in another country? If the pro-life crowd were consistent, they would be insisting on an end to war, not supporting it.
 
Mendalla said:
This. Just this. What is the point of saving a few unborn babies at home if you then kill dozens or hundreds who are born with your actions in another country? If the pro-life crowd were consistent, they would be insisting on an end to war, not supporting it.
Click to expand...

Riiight, because all pro-lifers are war mongers. *rolls eyes*
 
Jae said:
Riiight, because all pro-lifers are war mongers. *rolls eyes*
Click to expand...

Not all of them, but many of the US evangelical community did support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and are also pro-life. I'm sure that there are pacifist pro-lifers out there but you sure don't hear from them very much.
 
Mendalla said:
Not all of them, but many of the US evangelical community did support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and are also pro-life. I'm sure that there are pacifist pro-lifers out there but you sure don't hear from them very much.
Click to expand...

That's more fair. Your earlier post was an effort at paintemallwiththesamebrushism.
 
I think Mendalla made the point very well. And it stands.

People who support killing babies in other countries but oppose abortions at home are being hypocrites. The exhibit a love, of sorts, mixed with racial hatred. There's a lot of self-righteousness in their ranks.
I do not oppose abortion because, as an historian, I know what that means. You get a very high incidence amateur abortions with death for both mother and child.
Abortion is not recent in history. If you check newspapers of the late 1800s, you will find medicines for "female weakness", It was well known that this was a code term for abortion.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
People who support killing babies in other countries but oppose abortions at home are being hypocrites. The exhibit a love, of sorts, mixed with racial hatred. There's a lot of self-righteousness in their ranks.
Click to expand...


Excellent. So I take it then that you not only stand against killing babies in other countries but also stand against the mass murder of babies in the North American abortion mills.

Graeme Decarie said:
I do not oppose abortion because, as an historian, I know what that means. You get a very high incidence amateur abortions with death for both mother and child.
Click to expand...

So you're against the murder of babies in other countries but not against the murder of babies in the abortion mills. So then you're a hypocrite according to you.

Graeme Decarie said:
Abortion is not recent in history. If you check newspapers of the late 1800s, you will find medicines for "female weakness", It was well known that this was a code term for abortion.
Click to expand...

The murder of the unborn has always been wrong.
 
Birth control in foreign nations is like a stranger in the night! Also better than that function close to home ...
 
jae - you have comprehension problems. Abortion is going to happen on a very large scale no matter what laws you pass. You may satisfy your own lust for a self image by opposing abortion - simply being anti-abortion is going to kill or disfigure even more people than abortion will. It satisfies your lust for righteousness,, but does nothing for mothers or babies.

If we stop bombing civilians in other countries - and starving them - then that will stop the killing.
Get a good dictionary and ponder the word hypocrite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top