A painful need for better leaders
-
Kissinger (of course he is hawking his new book, but still worth considering)
-
Better leaders exist, but won’t make much of a difference if voters do not elect them or the system keeps them away from positions of power.
Kasich, Romney, Jeb Bush … any of them is a better leader than Trump, but the Republican primary voters chose Trump instead, giving Trump a very big victory margin over Kasich, Romney, and Bush. This is the case of the voters not electing a better leader.
Hillary Clinton is a better leader than Trump, and she actually won 2.87 million more popular votes than Trump nationwide. Yet the Electoral College put Trump in the White House instead. This is direct consequence of having an Electoral College that works the way it does. More voters actually voted for the better leader, but the electoral college went against the popular vote anyway.
“Good leaders” do not matter if the voters or the system do not actually put them in leadership positions.
Think there are no better leaders than Putin in Russia or Xi in China? It’s a statistical certainty that such leaders come into existence from time to time, but then Putin and Xi just make them ineligible in some way and the world remain stuck with Putin and Xi.
-
Better leaders exist, but won’t make much of a difference if voters do not elect them or the system keeps them away from positions of power.
Kasich, Romney, Jeb Bush … any of them is a better leader than Trump, but the Republican primary voters chose Trump instead, giving Trump a very big victory margin over Kasich, Romney, and Bush. This is the case of the voters not electing a better leader.
Hillary Clinton is a better leader than Trump, and she actually won 2.87 million more popular votes than Trump nationwide. Yet the Electoral College put Trump in the White House instead. This is direct consequence of having an Electoral College that works the way it does. More voters actually voted for the better leader, but the electoral college went against the popular vote anyway.
“Good leaders” do not matter if the voters or the system do not actually put them in leadership positions.
Think there are no better leaders than Putin in Russia or Xi in China? It’s a statistical certainty that such leaders come into existence from time to time, but then Putin and Xi just make them ineligible in some way and the world remain stuck with Putin and Xi.
@Axtremus said in A painful need for better leaders:
Better leaders exist
I like what you said. My thought is that better leaders exist, but they have to be smart enough to be smart leaders. And in present climate, who in his right mind wants it?
-
@Axtremus said in A painful need for better leaders:
Better leaders exist
I like what you said. My thought is that better leaders exist, but they have to be smart enough to be smart leaders. And in present climate, who in his right mind wants it?
@Catseye3 said in A painful need for better leaders:
@Axtremus said in A painful need for better leaders:
Better leaders exist
I like what you said. My thought is that better leaders exist, but they have to be smart enough to be smart leaders. And in present climate, who in his right mind wants it?
My opinion is that every democratic country gets the leaders it deserves.
-
Better leaders exist, but won’t make much of a difference if voters do not elect them or the system keeps them away from positions of power.
Kasich, Romney, Jeb Bush … any of them is a better leader than Trump, but the Republican primary voters chose Trump instead, giving Trump a very big victory margin over Kasich, Romney, and Bush. This is the case of the voters not electing a better leader.
Hillary Clinton is a better leader than Trump, and she actually won 2.87 million more popular votes than Trump nationwide. Yet the Electoral College put Trump in the White House instead. This is direct consequence of having an Electoral College that works the way it does. More voters actually voted for the better leader, but the electoral college went against the popular vote anyway.
“Good leaders” do not matter if the voters or the system do not actually put them in leadership positions.
Think there are no better leaders than Putin in Russia or Xi in China? It’s a statistical certainty that such leaders come into existence from time to time, but then Putin and Xi just make them ineligible in some way and the world remain stuck with Putin and Xi.
@Axtremus said in A painful need for better leaders:
Better leaders exist, but won’t make much of a difference if voters do not elect them or the system keeps them away from positions of power.
Kasich, Romney, Jeb Bush … any of them is a better leader than Trump, but the Republican primary voters chose Trump instead, giving Trump a very big victory margin over Kasich, Romney, and Bush. This is the case of the voters not electing a better leader.
Hillary Clinton is a better leader than Trump, and she actually won 2.87 million more popular votes than Trump nationwide. Yet the Electoral College put Trump in the White House instead. This is direct consequence of having an Electoral College that works the way it does. More voters actually voted for the better leader, but the electoral college went against the popular vote anyway.
“Good leaders” do not matter if the voters or the system do not actually put them in leadership positions.
Think there are no better leaders than Putin in Russia or Xi in China? It’s a statistical certainty that such leaders come into existence from time to time, but then Putin and Xi just make them ineligible in some way and the world remain stuck with Putin and Xi.
Don't you just love it....... a moron who wouldn't know leadership if it walked up to him and slapped him down, opining on who is and who is not a leader..... and getting every single thing wrong.....
