A simple statement.

[BlueStreak]

What don't I want?

I don't want leaders who govern by poll. I want leaders that lead.

I don't want leaders that are claim to be "average", "just like me", or act
like morons to get votes.
I want leaders who impress me as being "smarter" than me, and yes, of better character than me.

"HE THINKS HE'S SMARTER THAN YOU!!!"---Good. I think he's smarter than me too. If I had thought he was dumber than me, I wouldn't have voted for him. If I thought I was smarter than him, I would run for office.
(Whoever "he" might be.)

I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

Dave

[Combwork]

[QUOTE=BlueStreak;41950]What don't I want?

I don't want leaders who govern by poll. I want leaders that lead.

I don't want leaders that are claim to be "average", "just like me", or act
like morons to get votes.
I want leaders who impress me as being "smarter" than me, and yes, of better character than me.

"HE THINKS HE'S SMARTER THAN YOU!!!"---Good. I think he's smarter than me too. If I had thought he was dumber than me, I wouldn't have voted for him. If I thought I was smarter than him, I would run for office.
(Whoever "he" might be.)

I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

Dave.


"I don't want leaders who govern by poll. I want leaders that lead."

I see where you're coming from, but your poll is our referendum. I might like Labor's approach to the national health service but not their education policy. I might like the Conservatives take on defense policy, but not their attitude towards the EU. You can't mix and match so who do I vote for? Or do I just not bother; instead watch the count on TV then moan about whoever gets in.

Referendums should be the exception rather than the rule, but sometimes it's the only way to get public opinion on a single issue.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What don't I want?

I don't want leaders who govern by poll. I want leaders that lead.

I don't want leaders that are claim to be "average", "just like me", or act
like morons to get votes.
I want leaders who impress me as being "smarter" than me, and yes, of better character than me.

"HE THINKS HE'S SMARTER THAN YOU!!!"---Good. I think he's smarter than me too. If I had thought he was dumber than me, I wouldn't have voted for him. If I thought I was smarter than him, I would run for office.
(Whoever "he" might be.)

I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

Dave

I agree, but am a little mixed on the whole "character" thing. It depends on how one defines it, and the GOP has largely succeeded in providing the prevailing definition.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What don't I want?

I don't want leaders who govern by poll. I want leaders that lead.

I don't want leaders that are claim to be "average", "just like me", or act
like morons to get votes.
I want leaders who impress me as being "smarter" than me, and yes, of better character than me.

"HE THINKS HE'S SMARTER THAN YOU!!!"---Good. I think he's smarter than me too. If I had thought he was dumber than me, I wouldn't have voted for him. If I thought I was smarter than him, I would run for office.
(Whoever "he" might be.)

I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

Dave

I want an electorate to elect a leader and then support them.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I want an electorate to elect a leader and then support them.

Yep. Add that to the list. Or at the very least voice your opinion, then get the hell out of the way until the next election cycle.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

[QUOTE=Combwork;41951]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What don't I want?

I don't want leaders who govern by poll. I want leaders that lead.

I don't want leaders that are claim to be "average", "just like me", or act
like morons to get votes.
I want leaders who impress me as being "smarter" than me, and yes, of better character than me.

"HE THINKS HE'S SMARTER THAN YOU!!!"---Good. I think he's smarter than me too. If I had thought he was dumber than me, I wouldn't have voted for him. If I thought I was smarter than him, I would run for office.
(Whoever "he" might be.)

I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

Dave.


"I don't want leaders who govern by poll. I want leaders that lead."

I see where you're coming from, but your poll is our referendum. I might like Labor's approach to the national health service but not their education policy. I might like the Conservatives take on defense policy, but not their attitude towards the EU. You can't mix and match so who do I vote for? Or do I just not bother; instead watch the count on TV then moan about whoever gets in.

Referendums should be the exception rather than the rule, but sometimes it's the only way to get public opinion on a single issue.

I don't know what you have going on in the UK, but here we are getting rediculous with the polls. We have a poll for everything. Frivolous polls that serve no other purpose but to distract. We have new polls every day, even multiple times a day. We have contradicting polls that are obviously politically slanted depending on what "news"* channel you are watching or listening to. You can pretty much predict how some polls will read by the company that conducts the poll and the entity that usually hires them. Polls here in the USA have become a joke and I, for one, no longer believe any of them.

Dave

*Some of our "news" channels aren't really "news" channels at all. You get about an hour a day of actual news. The other twenty three hours are nothing but political propaganda.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Yep. Add that to the list. Or at the very least voice your opinion, then get the hell out of the way until the next election cycle.

Dave

I have always been against the opposition speech after a presidential address. It makes no sense on the planet to elect someone President then have the same debate every time he talks. BY the way I was against this since the beginning no matter who is in office, even Bush boy.