America's Fatally Flawed Justice System

[dogyks 30]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Considering, as far as I can tell, your candidate for competent replacement doesn't exist, do you have any suggestions? 

Wendy P.

Yeah, but the people I know who could do the job well aren't masochists.

Unfortunately, the skill set necessary to really do the job well doesn't tend to show up in one person. The necessary technical comprehension of economics, logistics, thermodynamics, history, communications, geography, sociology and what have you is significant.

Add to that the charisma and diplomatic skills required to deal with vested interests both foreign and domestic, and you need a real team effort to address all the fundamentals.

In theory the Chief Executive should be able to delegate much of the busy work to massively skilled Subject Matter Experts, but therein lies the rub.  The Dunning Kruger effect ("Unskilled and Unaware") was developed with a very bright cohort evaluating subjects with which they had no expectation of expertise.  My experience shows that all too many people who fancy themselves as Subject Matter Experts - to include many who are 'recognized' as such - don't know shit from Shinola when it gets down to it.

Thus, a Chief Executive with the best of intentions can be advised by someone who is beyond wrong on key issues, which has happened all too often throughout history.

In addition to sheer lack of understanding, if you add in conflict of interest, you have a recipe for unreliability.

If you could have someone with the likeability and charm of JFK or Reagan, with a team that had shrewd insight, Machiavellian worldview and limitless cunning doing the homework and largely calling the shots, you'd have a break even chance of a successful administration.  That is, of course, not going to happen.

So the answer to your question is no, I don't know anyone fully up to the task, but I can think of various people who I prefer to the prime movers on either side of the aisle.

[Phil1111 1,260]

17 hours ago, dogyks said:

Yeah, but the people I know who could do the job well aren't masochists.

Unfortunately, the skill set necessary to really do the job well doesn't tend to show up in one person. The necessary technical comprehension of economics, logistics, thermodynamics, history, communications, geography, sociology and what have you is significant.

Add to that the charisma and diplomatic skills required to deal with vested interests both foreign and domestic, and you need a real team effort to address all the fundamentals.

In theory the Chief Executive should be able to delegate much of the busy work to massively skilled Subject Matter Experts, but therein lies the rub.  The Dunning Kruger effect ("Unskilled and Unaware") was developed with a very bright cohort evaluating subjects with which they had no expectation of expertise.  My experience shows that all too many people who fancy themselves as Subject Matter Experts - to include many who are 'recognized' as such - don't know shit from Shinola when it gets down to it.

Thus, a Chief Executive with the best of intentions can be advised by someone who is beyond wrong on key issues, which has happened all too often throughout history.

In addition to sheer lack of understanding, if you add in conflict of interest, you have a recipe for unreliability.

If you could have someone with the likeability and charm of JFK or Reagan, with a team that had shrewd insight, Machiavellian worldview and limitless cunning doing the homework and largely calling the shots, you'd have a break even chance of a successful administration.  That is, of course, not going to happen.

So the answer to your question is no, I don't know anyone fully up to the task, but I can think of various people who I prefer to the prime movers on either side of the aisle.

A good summation as to why its the cabinet and advisors that make a leader and not the pure intellect of the individual. GW Bush was widely mocked for not being the sharpest tool in the box. But he had a good group around him so he muddled through it all.. 

King Trump on the other hand has surrounded himself with pure lackeys. Hence the absolutely scatterbrained policy. The one caveat is that project 2025 is pushed by Bannon, Miller, etc. and Trump is likely oblivious to the cost of those policies.

[jakee 1,643]

12 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

A good summation as to why its the cabinet and advisors that make a leader and not the pure intellect of the individual. GW Bush was widely mocked for not being the sharpest tool in the box. But he had a good group around him so he muddled through it all.. 

Wait do you mean GWB or GHWB? ‘Cus otherwise it’s like… wut???

[Phil1111 1,260]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

Wait do you mean GWB or GHWB? ‘Cus otherwise it’s like… wut???

 

[wmw999 2,638]

17 hours ago, dogyks said:

Yeah, but the people I know who could do the job well aren't masochists.

Unfortunately, the skill set necessary to really do the job well doesn't tend to show up in one person. The necessary technical comprehension of economics, logistics, thermodynamics, history, communications, geography, sociology and what have you is significant.

Add to that the charisma and diplomatic skills required to deal with vested interests both foreign and domestic, and you need a real team effort to address all the fundamentals.

...

So the answer to your question is no, I don't know anyone fully up to the task, but I can think of various people who I prefer to the prime movers on either side of the aisle.

The best result possible is the one that uses the people who are actually available, not the "if only I could" people. Even in running the country (which arguably should include the very best). And yes, not being a masochist is probably included. Any more, with every single person having their history being searchable through digital records, I'm afraid that someone who always thought of politics as a possibility is probably also included -- because no one else is going to guard their history so well. 

After Trump dies, we'll probably find out his GPA.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,643]

56 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

 

GWB’s group fabricated the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq. GWB’s group created the Afghan quagmire and set its government up for failure. They made no attempt to understand the politics of the region before setting up a random warlord as President and sending a couple of college kids to write him a constitution.

Culminating in the ‘08 financial crash GWBs entire presidency was a global disaster of seismic proportions, the aftershocks and ramifications of which created the conditions of misery and dissatisfaction that Trump himself capitalised on in his campaigns.

[kallend 2,212]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

GWB’s group fabricated the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq. GWB’s group created the Afghan quagmire and set its government up for failure. They made no attempt to understand the politics of the region before setting up a random warlord as President and sending a couple of college kids to write him a constitution.

Culminating in the ‘08 financial crash GWBs entire presidency was a global disaster of seismic proportions, the aftershocks and ramifications of which created the conditions of misery and dissatisfaction that Trump himself capitalised on in his campaigns.

I'll take (incompetent + decent)  over  (incompetent + evil).

[Phil1111 1,260]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

I'll take (incompetent + decent)  over  (incompetent + evil).

Bigly time.

[jakee 1,643]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

I'll take (incompetent + decent)  over  (incompetent + evil).

Funny how time changes perspective. Pretty sure that fifteen years ago most people here would have agreed that several of the most powerful men in GWB’s policy group were competent and malevolent, which might be the worst of all combinations.

 

[thelivo 21]

6 hours ago, kallend said:

I'll take (incompetent + decent)  over  (incompetent + evil).

I'd add boring. I like politicians to be boring. The inverse of that well known chinese curse.

[dogyks 30]

10 hours ago, thelivo said:

I'd add boring. I like politicians to be boring. The inverse of that well known chinese curse.

Likeable and entertaining would be nice.

Reagan was weak at arithmetic and key economic principles, among other things, but he had charm.  People who were staunchly opposed to his policies found themselves laughing at his delivery.

The incumbent can include sensible ideas amongst his blather, and does so in such a way as to make good ideas suspect.

The scum, indeed, rises to the top.

[Phil1111 1,260]

1 hour ago, dogyks said:

.....The scum, indeed, rises to the top.

You're reflecting too much locally. Some citizens love convicted felons, rapists, conmen, flim flam artists, etc.

Most countries refuse to endorse them.

[dogyks 30]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

You're reflecting too much locally. Some citizens love convicted felons, rapists, conmen, flim flam artists, etc.

Most countries refuse to endorse them.

He does sound like a true hip hop icon.

[richravizza 30]

On 9/26/2025 at 11:52 AM, JoeWeber said:

No need. I get my grammar lessons from the next President of the United States, the Honorable Rich Ravizza!

Why don't you talk your shit to my face? My King or is it Chairman Pot.

Edited Sunday at 09:46 PM by richravizza

[richravizza 30]

On 9/27/2025 at 6:23 AM, Phil1111 said:

A good summation as to why its the cabinet and advisors that make a leader and not the pure intellect of the individual. GW Bush was widely mocked for not being the sharpest tool in the box. But he had a good group around him so he muddled through it all.. 

King Trump on the other hand has surrounded himself with pure lackeys. Hence the absolutely scatterbrained policy. The one caveat is that project 2025 is pushed by Bannon, Miller, etc. and Trump is likely oblivious to the cost of those policies.

What ended the Border Crisis?

Cognitive dissonance much, being in tune not a problem for most hip hop icons 

Edited Sunday at 09:53 PM by richravizza