I miss this stammering idiot...

[LuisDantas]

I don't understand your usage of "strong".
But no matter.

Admittedly, it can be confusing. That is one reason why I avoid to use that word for politicians.

Perceptions of strength in politics are very dangerous, because they are very consistently destructive and misleading.

True strength is by definition self-assured and therefore discreet, almost unremarkable.

More to the point, it is of questionable political value, because it evidences and deepens divisions and conflicts as other people need to reestablish their own goals and worth.

As a rule, only weak politicians ever mention their strength when given a choice. And only weak political systems care whether their leaders are strong. Those situations are usually preludes of disaster.

 

[Revoltingest]

Admittedly, it can be confusing. That is one reason why I avoid to use that word for politicians.

Perceptions of strength in politics are very dangerous, because they are very consistently destructive and misleading.

True strength is by definition self-assured and therefore discreet, almost unremarkable.

More to the point, it is of questionable political value, because it evidences and deepens divisions and conflicts as other people need to reestablish their own goals and worth.

As a rule, only weak politicians ever mention their strength when given a choice. And only weak political systems care whether their leaders are strong. Those situations are usually preludes of disaster.

A highly personal definition, eh?
OK.

But some strong types are up front about being strong.
Hafthor (The Mountain) Bjornsson comes to mind.

 

[LuisDantas]

Personal? How so?

I would call it Taoistic, myself.

 

[LuisDantas]

A highly personal definition, eh?
OK.

But some strong types are up front about being strong.
Hafthor (The Mountain) Bjornsson comes to mind.

Yeah, he would make a fine GOP candidate, now wouldn't him?

Come to think of it, Scharzenegger turned out to be one of the best in recent memory.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personal? How so?

Not in common usage.

I would call it Taoistic, myself.

I don't speak Taoist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not in common usage.

I don't know about that.

I expect that it is not a popular definition for people who value so-called political strength. But lots of people understand the dangers of perceptions of strength.

 

[sun rise]

Were any human being that powerful, we would be talking of mind control, and the world would be significantly different from what it is.

GWB never had the power to unite the USA, although I am certain that he hoped and believed otherwise.

GWB tapped into the fears of the time and the people lent him enormous amounts of power for a while. That does not mean that it was a good idea, and certainly tells us nothing good about GWB - or for that matter, about the people who supported him either.

Please note that I meant to refer to the immediate aftermath of 9/11 not what happened later on. For a very short period of time we were united.

And his speech about Islam a few days later was not about tapping into fears but expressing what is best about America.

What happened after those few days was something different.

 

[LuisDantas]

Please note that I meant to refer to the immediate aftermath of 9/11 not what happened later on. For a very short period of time we were united.

And that was a bad thing. I remember how things were at that time. We all are still paying the price.

Union is not always a good thing. Particularly when it reflects denial or suppression of otherwise necessary questioning and criticism.

And his speech about Islam a few days later was not about tapping into fears but expressing what is best about America.

What happened after those few days was something different.

He may have been well-meaning, but I fail to see what is so great about what amounts to an insistence in defending the reputation of Islaam without proper arguments.

 

[godnotgod]

After the USA's treatment of Former President Obama, maybe your last Election will wake up the electorate for the next Election?

I don't think so. America was raised on myths, and needs a good bedtime story, a nice cup of hot chocolate, and a hero. Americans will forever fall for the next pied piper who comes on the scene. We will never resolve our problems and move forward into a truly progressive society. I truly believe that from here on out, more and more deterioration will set in, especially deterioration of civil rights until we wake up one day to a horrible nightmare. Ah, but hope springs eternal, does it not? So we sail on into an imaginary future that never comes on The Good Ship Lollipop.

After the USA's mistreatment of Obama, the outrageous lies told about him, and now, the election of a fascist, and I think maybe a war-monger,, we should realize just how seriously deluded Americans are. Instead, we are unabashedly touting our delusion as truth in broad daylight, ala mouthpieces like Kellyanne Conway, and all over the airwaves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's really bad that someone has surpassed Bush Jr. as worst Presidential speaker. It probably would have been better on him just to have his speech writers give the speeches themselves because Bush was just terrible. But at least he could form coherent sentences without rambling, stammering, and changing subjects. He just wanted moms to put food on their family, lol.

Almost seemed haunted.

I hope he is. Rich draft-dodging frat boy gonna send others off to fight and die, I hope he is haunted.

So you hated a speech that brought the country together, that comforted people in pain and so forth.

He leaned on the podium and told us to keep going shopping. His words of "comfort and unity" would comfort nothing but only increase sorrow and death.

 

[sun rise]

And that was a bad thing. I remember how things were at that time. We all are still paying the price.

Union is not always a good thing. Particularly when it reflects denial or suppression of otherwise necessary questioning and criticism.
...

He may have been well-meaning, but I fail to see what is so great about what amounts to an insistence in defending the reputation of Islaam without proper arguments.

I'm not sure what you would have wanted "proper arguments" but if you are asking for a historical review of Islam and a lengthy theological exegesis, that would have taken days. What he said there was accurate and to-the-point.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure what you would have wanted "proper arguments" but if you are asking for a historical review of Islam and a lengthy theological exegesis, that would have taken days. What he said there was accurate and to-the-point.

Sorry, I must disagree. It was well-meaning, but inaccurate and ultimately misguided.