How Long Will Biden Last? Full Term? Two?

dirtywick said:
True but it’s an antiquated qualification. Only 1 of them served during a war that wasn’t fought on horseback.
Click to expand...

Still not sure why it isn't good experience. Generally speaking, (opportunistic pun) Generals are still a link in the chain. They give orders and they obey orders. Eisenhower was made CINC Allied Forces Europe because he was organized and was diplomatic, not because he was a fighter. That served him well. I give you that Patton, MacArthur, or Montgomery would have made terrible heads of State, but Ike, Marshall, Bradley seem to understand there is more to being a leader than just giving orders.
 
Last edited:
Although there has been a wide range of quality in past presidents, and it doesn't seem to directly correlate with prior careers, I'm comfortable crossing "reality TV star" off the list of jobs a president could reasonably have had before office. We were better off with ex-prostitutes like Fillmore and Hayes.
 
acbytesla said:
Still not sure why it isn't good experience. Generally speaking, (opportunistic pun) Generals are still a link in the chain. They give orders and they obey orders. Eisenhower was made CINC Allied Forces Europe because he was organized and was diplomatic, not because he was a fighter. That served him well. I give you that Patton, MacArthur, or Montgomery both would have made terrible heads of State, but Ike, Marshall, Bradley seem to understand there is more to being a leader than just giving orders.
Click to expand...

It's good experience, it's just not government experience which I think a POTUS needs. You don't start at the top. I doubt Lt. Eisenhower would have made the same decisions as CINC Allied Forces Europe as Gen. Eisenhower did. Experience made the difference.
 
Stacyhs said:
It's good experience, it's just not government experience which I think a POTUS needs. You don't start at the top. I doubt Lt. Eisenhower would have made the same decisions as CINC Allied Forces Europe as Gen. Eisenhower did. Experience made the difference.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don't view it as disqualifying.

But it doesn't seem to me that many ex-generals are much interested in politics. The last one I can remember running was Eisenhower. MacArthur acted like a candidate, but never actually ran. Maybe someone I don't recall ran since then, but I don't recall anyone. People pushed Colin Powell to run, but he didn't.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Maybe, but I don't view it as disqualifying.

But it doesn't seem to me that many ex-generals are much interested in politics. The last one I can remember running was Eisenhower. MacArthur acted like a candidate, but never actually ran. Maybe someone I don't recall ran since then, but I don't recall anyone. People pushed Colin Powell to run, but he didn't.
Click to expand...

General Wesley Clark ran in 2004.
 
acbytesla said:
Maybe, but I don't view it as disqualifying.

But it doesn't seem to me that many ex-generals are much interested in politics. The last one I can remember running was Eisenhower. MacArthur acted like a candidate, but never actually ran. Maybe someone I don't recall ran since then, but I don't recall anyone. People pushed Colin Powell to run, but he didn't.
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone has claimed it as being disqualifying.
 
acbytesla said:
Still not sure why it isn't good experience. Generally speaking, (opportunistic pun) Generals are still a link in the chain. They give orders and they obey orders. Eisenhower was made CINC Allied Forces Europe because he was organized and was diplomatic, not because he was a fighter. That served him well. I give you that Patton, MacArthur, or Montgomery would have made terrible heads of State, but Ike, Marshall, Bradley seem to understand there is more to being a leader than just giving orders.
Click to expand...

I think a hypothetical general could be a good president, but I’m not sure that being a general is a good work experience for the role necessarily. They live in a giant bureaucratic bubble where the government attends to their daily needs. They have no experience in what it’s like to be an American.
 
The baby boom was not a generation, per se. As indicated below, it’s a descriptive term for a particular demographic.
 

Attachments

  • E9D240B6-77CE-4130-AF40-59C23937A1FE.jpg
    E9D240B6-77CE-4130-AF40-59C23937A1FE.jpg
    60.1 KB · Views: 12
dirtywick said:
I think a hypothetical general could be a good president, but I’m not sure that being a general is a good work experience for the role necessarily. They live in a giant bureaucratic bubble where the government attends to their daily needs. They have no experience in what it’s like to be an American.
Click to expand...

Is that highlighted line some kind of sarcasm?

I agree that someone who went to West Point, Annapolis or any other military academy and had a career in the military hasn't had a typical life experience, but to go so far as to say they have no experience of what it's like to be an American is ridiculous and frankly insulting.

Now, I firmly believe the United States military is a bloated institution and far too many Generals and Colonels retire from the military to work for the military industrial complex. That said, most of these people that I know in the military have a great love of this country. Most are very principled.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Yeah, but most of those were old-timey presidents. Eisenhower was the most recent, right? And that was quite a while ago.


eta: I look forward the wrangle on the exact definitions of "a while" and "quite a while".
Click to expand...

Ike was the last. The rest were in the 19th and 18th centuries
 
Okay, last time:

Tragic Monkey: "I go with the definition of Boomers that means post WW2 babies. Literally the baby boom from returning soldiers." (there's no wiggle room there! That's your definition. You even threw in a "literally")

Me: He was born in 1942.

Tragic Monkey: Yeah, well he's still a Boomer because 1942 is closer than 1964 (huh?), and what about the siblings and the uncles and champagne and Jello??? Huh? Didn't think about that, did you smartypants!!??!?!

Me: Jelly!
 
angrysoba said:
Okay, last time:

Tragic Monkey: "I go with the definition of Boomers that means post WW2 babies. Literally the baby boom from returning soldiers." (there's no wiggle room there! That's your definition. You even threw in a "literally")

Me: He was born in 1942.

Tragic Monkey: Yeah, well he's still a Boomer because 1942 is closer than 1964 (huh?), and what about the siblings and the uncles and champagne and Jello??? Huh? Didn't think about that, did you smartypants!!??!?!

Me: Jelly!
Click to expand...

Are you wanting a cookie because you knew Biden's exact year of birth and I didn't? Here is your cookie. I still consider that, for all useful categorization purposes, Biden's a Boomer. Because he shares more with that age cohort than he does with the preceding bunch. It's an opinion about a fuzzy social science meme, not a scientific or legal fact that can be proven or disproven. Biden is close enough to a Boomer that I see no point in excessive insistence that he is not. I really wonder why this seems to put you into such a stir.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Are you wanting a cookie because you knew Biden's exact year of birth and I didn't? Here is your cookie. I still consider that, for all useful categorization purposes, Biden's a Boomer. Because he shares more with that age cohort than he does with the preceding bunch. It's an opinion about a fuzzy social science meme, not a scientific or legal fact that can be proven or disproven. Biden is close enough to a Boomer that I see no point in excessive insistence that he is not. I really wonder why this seems to put you into such a stir.
Click to expand...

I don't want a cookie, but I find the whole "yeah, but really he is a Boomer" thing to be just weird.

I don't understand why people do this kind of thing, just dig into position that directly contradicts a previous position.

I don't know what happened to "Oh yeah, I didn't realize that. Thanks."
 
angrysoba said:
I don't want a cookie, but I find the whole "yeah, but really he is a Boomer" thing to be just weird.

I don't understand why people do this kind of thing, just dig into position that directly contradicts a previous position.

I don't know what happened to "Oh yeah, I didn't realize that. Thanks."
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for pointing out Biden's year of birth was during, and not after, WWII. But I still consider him to be a Boomer anyway, for the reasons I've stated several times above. So if you're demanding I agree with you that will simply not happen.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Well, thanks for pointing out Biden's year of birth was during, and not after, WWII. But I still consider him to be a Boomer anyway, for the reasons I've stated several times above. So if you're demanding I agree with you that will simply not happen.
Click to expand...

Ok Boomer
 
acbytesla said:
Is that highlighted line some kind of sarcasm?

I agree that someone who went to West Point, Annapolis or any other military academy and had a career in the military hasn't had a typical life experience, but to go so far as to say they have no experience of what it's like to be an American is ridiculous and frankly insulting.

Now, I firmly believe the United States military is a bloated institution and far too many Generals and Colonels retire from the military to work for the military industrial complex. That said, most of these people that I know in the military have a great love of this country. Most are very principled.
Click to expand...

And all that’s fine. But they live in military communities and command military personnel that live under different laws. The government provides them food, shelter, and healthcare. They go to different military only schools. They have their own news papers and TV networks. Their own banks and insurance companies. They get a different retirement package. They disappear from their families for months at a time to go train or work overseas. They speak in acronyms.

Sorry to insult you. I’m a veteran if that makes you feel any better. It’s not that they’re not patriots or principled, it’s that they live in a separate world. They don’t understand what average Americans have to deal with in life because they’re not living the same way. Which is the point, how can a general relate to the average American or even understand what problems they face? They’ve never been out of their bubble.
 
dirtywick said:
Which is the point, how can a general relate to the average American or even understand what problems they face? They’ve never been out of their bubble.
Click to expand...

In this case, probably no POTUS ever qualified. Politicians and billionaries live in their own bubbles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom