QUIZ: Are You Cut Out to be President of the United States?

[Sunstone]

Multiple choice quizzes are for sissies. This is the real thing. Answer each of the following questions in 50 words or less -- based on your knowledge of how these things have been traditionally or customarily done. Newfangled ways might be exciting, but I'm looking for the "usual suspects" here.

HINT: Focus on what a politically competent person would do.

Answers will be posted in a few days.

.......

(1) You decide America's national interest lies in invading and conquering Venezuela in order to secure its oil. What do you tell the American people is the reason for the invasion and conquest of Venezuela?

(2) Your political opponents want to impeach you but have been holding off -- what is the MOST likely reason they have not yet begun impeachment proceedings -- assuming (1) you are guilty as hell and they have the goods on you, and (2) your opponents are politically competent.

(3) You need to persuade a U.S. Senator and key committee chairperson to support voting a bill you favor out of committee. Based on historical precedent, what is the single MOST likely thing you will do to persuade them, speaking in general terms?

(4) You appoint a new ambassador to Norway -- Karen Bexley-Smyth -- who is not a career diplomat. What is the most likely reason you chose Karen Bexley-Smyth for the job?

(5) Your Secretary of Labor informs you of the truth that 85% of the manufacturing jobs being lost each year in the United States are being lost to robots. That is, humans are being replaced by machines. However, you keep the news to yourself and instead hit the campaign trail slamming American corporations for shipping jobs overseas. Why? What is the MOST likely reason you fail to tell the American people the truth?

(6) Describe in your own words the key difference between a solution to a problem and a political solution to a problem?

......

BONUS QUESTION: You decide to reform the tax code. Over a ten year period, roughly how much revenue will be lost if you continue the current practice of taxing investment income at a much lower rate than the tax on wages and salaries? [PLEASE NOTE: This is not a question you would need to know as president. You have aides for that. Here, the question is just for fun.]

Estimated level of difficulty: A year or two short of an undergraduate degree in political science.

 

[Sunstone]

ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ
​

Please note well: There are no absolutely certain answers to a quiz of this nature. However, that does not change the fact that some answers are far and away more likely than other answers. The answers given below are in my opinion the most likely ones. Although I am far from being an expert on politics, you don't really need to know a whole lot to know the most likely answers to the quiz questions. For instance, any university student with two or three courses in political history and/or political science probably knows this stuff forwards and backwards. Again, just about anyone who has read a half dozen to a dozen or so books in these subjects probably knows the most likely answers to the quiz questions.

(1) Traditionally, you would find or invent some reason that Venezuela posed a dangerous or existential threat to the American people.

(2) Your political opponents are most likely holding off until they believe they have substantial public support on their side for impeaching you.

(3) You are most likely to offer the Senate Chairperson some form of quid pro quo -- as opposed to, say, a well-reasoned and rational argument.

(4) Traditionally, ambassadorships are often rewarded to people who were in one way or another vital to getting a president elected. A secondary -- but much rarer -- reason has now and then been to get a political opponent out of the country, thus weakening their influence and power.

(5) Obviously, you do not see any political advantage to you to telling the American people the truth. For one thing, the truth in this case would open a whole new can of worms since -- currently -- the issues surrounding robotics are not very well defined in the public mind. Thus you might not be totally sure what "solution" you need to propose in order to attract the voters you want to attract. etc. etc. etc. Best to leave it alone for now, let someone else take the risks of pioneering the issue.

(6) A solution solves a problem. A political solution might or might not actually solve a problem, but it has backing -- that is, powerful political support (such as masses of people in favor of it, or such as powerful interest groups in favor of it, etc.).

BONUS QUESTION. 1.3 trillion dollars.

 

[Sunstone]

THE USUAL CRAP INTERNET TEST OR QUIZ​

QUESTION ONE: Richard Nixon was (a) a politician or (b) a shoe salesman.

QUESTION TWO: A "politician" is an (a) occupation or (b) species of duck.

QUESTION THREE: Politicians are elected to office by (a) votes or (b) cosmic radiation.

BONUS QUESTION: [Insert tired old bacon joke here]

Estimated level of difficulty: Second grade for most of the world, middle school for Americans.

 

[Erebus]

(1) You decide America's national interest lies in invading and conquering Venezuela in order to secure its oil. What do you tell the American people is the reason for the invasion and conquest of Venezuela?

(2) Your political opponents want to impeach you but have been holding off -- what is the MOST likely reason they have not yet begun impeachment proceedings -- assuming (1) you are guilty as hell and they have the goods on you, and (2) your opponents are politically competent.

(3) You need to persuade a U.S. Senator and key committee chairperson to support voting a bill you favor out of committee. Based on historical precedent, what is the single MOST likely thing you will do to persuade them, speaking in general terms?

(4) You appoint a new ambassador to Norway -- Karen Bexley-Smyth -- who is not a career diplomat. What is the most likely reason you chose Karen Bexley-Smyth for the job?

(5) Your Secretary of Labor informs you of the truth that 85% of the manufacturing jobs being lost each year in the United States are being lost to robots. That is, humans are being replaced by machines. However, you keep the news to yourself and instead hit the campaign trail slamming American corporations for shipping jobs overseas. Why? What is the MOST likely reason you fail to tell the American people the truth?

(6) Describe in your own words the key difference between a solution to a problem and a political solution to a problem?

1. Approach it from multiple angles. A) Venezuela presents a military threat. B) Venezuela presents an ideological threat to American Democracy. C) The Venezuelan people need to be saved from tyranny. That should more or less cover all the bases.

2. Make damn sure my successor is a scarier prospect than me. They shouldn't be incompetent but they should be destabilizing, perhaps by holding a couple of highly controversial views that I'm not associated with. Change is typically scarier than stupidity.

3. Strongly suggest it's in their best interest without explicitly offering political/financial favours or threats to their jobs/reputation. Picking the right person is crucial here. They need to be just the right blend of greedy and cowardly

4. I'm not sure on this one. Perhaps it would be because I value loyalty over experience.

5. It's far easier to shift blame than to address the potential ramifications of ongoing mechanization. Smoke and mirrors is more workable and more likely to achieve the appearance of progress than trying to redesign the entire country's approach to industry.

6. A solution will attempt to understand the causes of a problem and achieve its results by fixing the system itself. A political solution will focus solely on the problem itself (the symptom if you will) and is primarily focused on achieving superficial results for the sake of appearances.


Okay so full disclosure on my answers here... I'm not a US citizen so my knowledge of the American political system is limited. I'm also highly cynical regarding politicians in general.

 

[Stevicus]

Multiple choice quizzes are for sissies. This is the real thing. Answer each of the following questions in 50 words or less -- based on your knowledge of how these things have been traditionally or customarily done. Newfangled ways might be exciting, but I'm looking for the "usual suspects" here.

HINT: Focus on what a politically competent person would do.

Answers will be posted in a few days.

.......

(1) You decide America's national interest lies in invading and conquering Venezuela in order to secure its oil. What do you tell the American people is the reason for the invasion and conquest of Venezuela?

I would not decide something like that. I mean, if we were in some kind of desperate situation and absolutely needed Venezuelan oil, then there might be other ways of securing it short of invasion and conquest.

Historically, the main justification used by the US government in invading and/or interfering in Latin American countries was that if we didn't do it, some other major power would - who could then use it as a foothold in the Americas to become an even larger threat.

(2) Your political opponents want to impeach you but have been holding off -- what is the MOST likely reason they have not yet begun impeachment proceedings -- assuming (1) you are guilty as hell and they have the goods on you, and (2) your opponents are politically competent.

Impeachment is nothing more than a vote in Congress, and it's just a numbers game. Assuming they're politically competent, they would have asked around and determined if they had enough votes to support an impeachment. If they didn't, that would be a good enough reason to hold off.

On the other hand, if I'm some kind of fanatical madman, I would have stacked key government agencies and the military leadership with my own people - at which point I'd be in a position to totally destroy any opposition.

(3) You need to persuade a U.S. Senator and key committee chairperson to support voting a bill you favor out of committee. Based on historical precedent, what is the single MOST likely thing you will do to persuade them, speaking in general terms?

Well, apart from the standard offering of "quid pro quo" (aka "You wash my back, I'll scratch your hands"), there's always good old fashioned extortion.

President: "Well, Mr. Senator, we have these compromising photographs of you pleasuring yourself with a fried chicken. If you don't want these pics to end up in every newspaper in the country, you'd better support my bill."

(4) You appoint a new ambassador to Norway -- Karen Bexley-Smyth -- who is not a career diplomat. What is the most likely reason you chose Karen Bexley-Smyth for the job?

Well, if she's fluent in Norwegian and a leading scholar of Norwegian history and culture, she might still be qualified without being a career diplomat. But I've never heard of her and don't know her actual qualifications.

(5) Your Secretary of Labor informs you of the truth that 85% of the manufacturing jobs being lost each year in the United States are being lost to robots. That is, humans are being replaced by machines. However, you keep the news to yourself and instead hit the campaign trail slamming American corporations for shipping jobs overseas. Why? What is the MOST likely reason you fail to tell the American people the truth?

Why would I keep the news to myself? Even I don't know why I would do that. In fact, if this really was the case, I would presume that the corporations are saving enough money in labor costs that they could well afford to pay higher taxes to provide a Basic Universal Income to all of the displaced workers. (Or they could do that now with all the money they saved from shipping jobs overseas.)

(6) Describe in your own words the key difference between a solution to a problem and a political solution to a problem?

A political solution might have to involve some level of negotiation and compromise to satisfy all parties. That's because there will be those who don't want to solve a problem (or might not see it as a problem at all), along with those who genuinely want to solve it.

......

BONUS QUESTION: You decide to reform the tax code. Over a ten year period, roughly how much revenue will be lost if you continue the current practice of taxing investment income at a much lower rate than the tax on wages and salaries? [PLEASE NOTE: This is not a question you would need to know as president. You have aides for that. Here, the question is just for fun.]

Theoretically, the lower taxes on the rich would lead to a windfall, which would presumably be spent on greater investment, which would trickle down in the form of higher wages and salaries - which would be taxed and produce greater revenue for the government.

If it turns out that's not happening, and the rich are instead keeping the poor poor while their money sits idle in offshore accounts - well, in that case, I'd divert our Venezuelan invasion fleet, leave Venezuela alone, and go after the countries which hold these offshore accounts.

 

[Sunstone]

1. Approach it from multiple angles. A) Venezuela presents a military threat. B) Venezuela presents an ideological threat to American Democracy. C) The Venezuelan people need to be saved from tyranny. That should more or less cover all the bases.

2. Make damn sure my successor is a scarier prospect than me. They shouldn't be incompetent but they should be destabilizing, perhaps by holding a couple of highly controversial views that I'm not associated with. Change is typically scarier than stupidity.

3. Strongly suggest it's in their best interest without explicitly offering political/financial favours or threats to their jobs/reputation. Picking the right person is crucial here. They need to be just the right blend of greedy and cowardly

4. I'm not sure on this one. Perhaps it would be because I value loyalty over experience.

5. It's far easier to shift blame than to address the potential ramifications of ongoing mechanization. Smoke and mirrors is more workable and more likely to achieve the appearance of progress than trying to redesign the entire country's approach to industry.

6. A solution will attempt to understand the causes of a problem and achieve its results by fixing the system itself. A political solution will focus solely on the problem itself (the symptom if you will) and is primarily focused on achieving superficial results for the sake of appearances.


Okay so full disclosure on my answers here... I'm not a US citizen so my knowledge of the American political system is limited. I'm also highly cynical regarding politicians in general.

I expect the average person to provide reasonably good answers to about two of the questions. In my view, you got twice that many "right". I'm kind of in awe of you this morning, especially given that you are not an American.

In a few days, I aim to go into more detail about your answers when I post what I consider the best answers.

 

[Erebus]

I expect the average person to provide reasonably good answers to about two of the questions. In my view, you got twice that many "right". I'm kind of in awe of you this morning, especially given that you are not an American.

Thank you very much!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Multiple choice quizzes are for sissies. This is the real thing. Answer each of the following questions in 50 words or less -- based on your knowledge of how these things have been traditionally or customarily done. Newfangled ways might be exciting, but I'm looking for the "usual suspects" here.

HINT: Focus on what a politically competent person would do.

Answers will be posted in a few days.

Okay, I'm gonna try this without reading other posts, so I apologise if I miss any clarifications, or back and forths. 50 words or less makes it interesting. I'm kinda verbose sometimes.

(1) You decide America's national interest lies in invading and conquering Venezuela in order to secure its oil. What do you tell the American people is the reason for the invasion and conquest of Venezuela?

Venezuela is no longer a free society. It strains under a yoke of dictatorship, in fact. So freeing the people is of prime importance. Naturally, we want a strong and independent Venezuela, so we won't touch her oil fields at all, but merely secure them for the newly democratic government.

(2) Your political opponents want to impeach you but have been holding off -- what is the MOST likely reason they have not yet begun impeachment proceedings -- assuming (1) you are guilty as hell and they have the goods on you, and (2) your opponents are politically competent.

Their primary goal is securing the next election. There is no rush to force a win/lose judgement from which I could recover. Instead they'll let me bleed slowly in the court of public opinion.

(3) You need to persuade a U.S. Senator and key committee chairperson to support voting a bill you favor out of committee. Based on historical precedent, what is the single MOST likely thing you will do to persuade them, speaking in general terms?

Quid Pro Quo. Find a way to support them on something, whether it's political or in the private sphere, and then either shake hands in mutual admiration, or threaten them with photos. The former is preferable, since it maintains the relationship for the next moment of need.

(4) You appoint a new ambassador to Norway -- Karen Bexley-Smyth -- who is not a career diplomat. What is the most likely reason you chose Karen Bexley-Smyth for the job?

Quid Pro Quo. A gentleman pays his debts. Besides, ambassador posts to nice countries have always been used to reward supportive career diplomats. All I've done is remove the glass ceiling. I have a talent for spotting talented people, ya know?

(5) Your Secretary of Labor informs you of the truth that 85% of the manufacturing jobs being lost each year in the United States are being lost to robots. That is, humans are being replaced by machines. However, you keep the news to yourself and instead hit the campaign trail slamming American corporations for shipping jobs overseas. Why? What is the MOST likely reason you fail to tell the American people the truth?

Well...I'm torn on this one. It wan't one reason, you see? I want American corporations to maximise revenue as part of my trickle around economics. And I want American workers to vote for me in indignant outrage against 'them'. (You know...'them'. People not eligible to vote for me.)

(6) Describe in your own words the key difference between a solution to a problem and a political solution to a problem?

A solved problem is no longer available to solve. Alternatively, a political solution can be reused on the same basic issue multiple times in order to give the appearance of meaningful (or at least easy to understand) action, and galvanise the base.

BONUS QUESTION: You decide to reform the tax code. Over a ten year period, roughly how much revenue will be lost if you continue the current practice of taxing investment income at a much lower rate than the tax on wages and salaries? [PLEASE NOTE: This is not a question you would need to know as president. You have aides for that. Here, the question is just for fun.]

Estimated level of difficulty: A year or two short of an undergraduate degree in political science.

This is clearly fake news. I didn't decide to reform the tax code. Not even hypothetically. You are no longer invited to my press conferences. Hand in your pass, and leave the room. Only free press is allowed here.

 

[Augustus]

(1) You decide America's national interest lies in invading and conquering Venezuela in order to secure its oil. What do you tell the American people is the reason for the invasion and conquest of Venezuela?

"War for oil" makes little sense politically or economically. Absent other motives it would not happen.

I abstain from this question

(2) Your political opponents want to impeach you but have been holding off -- what is the MOST likely reason they have not yet begun impeachment proceedings -- assuming (1) you are guilty as hell and they have the goods on you, and (2) your opponents are politically competent.

Really depends on the situation.

They prefer their chances against me than my successor, they want to make my party tarnish itself by defending me, they believe they will win the next election regardless and this issue prevents me from fully advancing my policy agenda in the meantime, etc.

(3) You need to persuade a U.S. Senator and key committee chairperson to support voting a bill you favor out of committee. Based on historical precedent, what is the single MOST likely thing you will do to persuade them, speaking in general terms?

Pork barrel

"Wouldn't it be nice if you had an additional $X million to spend on infrastructure/pet projects/etc, let's tack it on to the end of the bill"

(4) You appoint a new ambassador to Norway -- Karen Bexley-Smyth -- who is not a career diplomat. What is the most likely reason you chose Karen Bexley-Smyth for the job?

She was a major donor to your election

(5) Your Secretary of Labor informs you of the truth that 85% of the manufacturing jobs being lost each year in the United States are being lost to robots. That is, humans are being replaced by machines. However, you keep the news to yourself and instead hit the campaign trail slamming American corporations for shipping jobs overseas. Why? What is the MOST likely reason you fail to tell the American people the truth?

Politicians focus on things they can control more than things they cannot.

It humanises the problem and creates specific agency with an avaricious human enemy cheating 'good honest Americans'. This is both concrete, and emotive and can be understood by the audience with minimal cognitive effort. Repatriating jobs (or cancelling commitment to offshore them) gets you headlines and easy wins (It can also give companies good PR).

Even if you wanted to, you can't really get a victory in 'slightly less automation' as it is not an event but a consequence of various long-term processes that generally don't become apparent unless they actually happen. "Apple reduced spending on automation R+D by 7%" isn't going to stop traffic.

Automation cannot really be stopped, some degree of offshoring can be.

(6) Describe in your own words the key difference between a solution to a problem and a political solution to a problem?

A political solution deals with a perception of an issue as it exists in people's minds (often also shaping how that issue exists in their minds).

If a child can't sleep because of monsters under the bed, you can solve this by leaving the light on and telling them light kills monsters - substantial reality hasn't changed, just an individual's perception of it.

A solution to a problem addresses the problem itself and is designed to change real-world conditions, rather than subjective perceptions (although the latter may be a consequence of the former).

A political solution to a problem is always possible and politically expedient, a solution may not be possible or may not be politically expedient if public perception does not align with required courses of action.

 

[Altfish]

"War for oil" makes little sense politically or economically. Absent other motives it would not happen.

It only makes sense if your backers are military hardware companies, oil companies (whose price will rocket) and other people who will gamble on the markets on there being a war

 

[LuisDantas]

I did not read the answers, if those happened to be posted already.

For the record, if I had any self-respect whatsoever I would refuse to even answer these darned questions with anything beyond variants on "sorry, I just don't do this".

(1) You decide America's national interest lies in invading and conquering Venezuela in order to secure its oil. What do you tell the American people is the reason for the invasion and conquest of Venezuela?

Protecting the economic viability and advancement of America's society.

(Are you proud? I feel like a drunken skunk already.)

(2) Your political opponents want to impeach you but have been holding off -- what is the MOST likely reason they have not yet begun impeachment proceedings -- assuming (1) you are guilty as hell and they have the goods on you, and (2) your opponents are politically competent.

Because I have, after all, been elected. That must mean that a significant segment of society somehow thinks well enough of me to waste their votes on me. There is a political price to be paid in impeaching me, if only because some voters just won't overcome their denial.

(3) You need to persuade a U.S. Senator and key committee chairperson to support voting a bill you favor out of committee. Based on historical precedent, what is the single MOST likely thing you will do to persuade them, speaking in general terms?

Propose or support some form of bill or other initiative that is likely to be perceived as advancing that Senator's State in economic terms.

(4) You appoint a new ambassador to Norway -- Karen Bexley-Smyth -- who is not a career diplomat. What is the most likely reason you chose Karen Bexley-Smyth for the job?

To fulfill that week's quota of pointless controversy to distract the media and political commentators from more questionable matters that would otherwise receive more attention.

I mean, it is Norway. Those are civilized people and will probably excuse and facilitate the beejezus out of whoever I send there. Not that I deserve it, but they will.

(5) Your Secretary of Labor informs you of the truth that 85% of the manufacturing jobs being lost each year in the United States are being lost to robots. That is, humans are being replaced by machines. However, you keep the news to yourself and instead hit the campaign trail slamming American corporations for shipping jobs overseas. Why? What is the MOST likely reason you fail to tell the American people the truth?

Why, I fell that I should be offended.

Because I am a freaking opportunistic, shameless, manipulative liar with no self-respect (or respect towards others) whatsoever, of course!

Who do you think I am?

(6) Describe in your own words the key difference between a solution to a problem and a political solution to a problem?

Solutions resolve situations.

"Political solutions" provide talking points that may even have some sort of connection to the reality of facts, but that is entirely optional; their purpose is to cover a problem with words that somehow impress those who might otherwise complain or admit to a troublesome situation. In essence, they are obfuscation lent respectability.

BONUS QUESTION: You decide to reform the tax code. Over a ten year period, roughly how much revenue will be lost if you continue the current practice of taxing investment income at a much lower rate than the tax on wages and salaries? [PLEASE NOTE: This is not a question you would need to know as president. You have aides for that. Here, the question is just for fun.].

About 20%-25% sounds just about right.

 

[gnomon]

Just say nope.

Stop feeding the fevered egos.

edit: I here there are some good snail races out there. Better money there.

There are fall spores in the air.

 

[Sunstone]

The answers to the quiz are in post #2 of this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

HINT: Focus on what a politically competent person would do.

I reject that premise, & will instead offer what I'd do.

(1) You decide America's national interest lies in invading and conquering Venezuela in order to secure its oil. What do you tell the American people is the reason for the invasion and conquest of Venezuela?

On TV, this will happen....
Announcer:
"We interrupt your regularly scheduled Robot Chicken episode for this important announcement"
President Me:
"I've changed my mind. There'll be no invasion."

(2) Your political opponents want to impeach you but have been holding off -- what is the MOST likely reason they have not yet begun impeachment proceedings -- assuming (1) you are guilty as hell and they have the goods on you, and (2) your opponents are politically competent.

They fear a backlash if they fail.

(3) You need to persuade a U.S. Senator and key committee chairperson to support voting a bill you favor out of committee. Based on historical precedent, what is the single MOST likely thing you will do to persuade them, speaking in general terms?

I will use reasoned argument & bargaining.

(4) You appoint a new ambassador to Norway -- Karen Bexley-Smyth -- who is not a career diplomat. What is the most likely reason you chose Karen Bexley-Smyth for the job?

Political patronage.
After all, it's an insignificant position, so anyone would do.

(5) Your Secretary of Labor informs you of the truth that 85% of the manufacturing jobs being lost each year in the United States are being lost to robots. That is, humans are being replaced by machines. However, you keep the news to yourself and instead hit the campaign trail slamming American corporations for shipping jobs overseas. Why? What is the MOST likely reason you fail to tell the American people the truth?

The only reason I'd behave this way is if some evil alien pod has taken control of my brain.

(6) Describe in your own words the key difference between a solution to a problem and a political solution to a problem?

A political solution might or might not solve the problem, but
there is enuf agreement from all parties in power to effect it.
Abortion regulation is an example of something with a political
solution only.

BONUS QUESTION: You decide to reform the tax code. Over a ten year period, roughly how much revenue will be lost if you continue the current practice of taxing investment income at a much lower rate than the tax on wages and salaries? [PLEASE NOTE: This is not a question you would need to know as president. You have aides for that. Here, the question is just for fun.]

I have no clue.