View Single Post
  #24  
Old 04-22-2004, 02:29 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Quote:
Not everyone handles the same under pressure. Even though I have butterflies before I go speak to a large crowd, it goes away.
Tell me: who were the "presidential greats"? Placing someone under association because of some slight impediment isn't exactly the best determining factor for how good of a person that would be. I know some of the greatest minds in my school, and they don't get noticed simply because they can't express it. Doesn't change that they are a great mind, though.
It doesn't mean that they have a "stupid mind" when they can't speak in front of the public. What I was trying to say here is that if he can't address to the public well, he can't lead the country with high "efficiency". The greatest minds don't need to speak, because their minds may be out of our comprehension, but they would speak at least in a highly understandable manner to the public if they must speak. It is their nature that most of what they would say is too much for hte public is too difficult for the public to understand. It's the same as speaking Latin to the general population. the population won't understand it, but if you speak the few english words you know you can communicate them with, you're making them understand. The fact that Bush is not outspoken when incredible grammatical errors shows that he's not the genius type.

Presidential Greats, such a Kennedy, have always marked themselves within history books. I, not having studied American history, rather just Canadian history, can only say that from the vague images given to me in Canadian history that Kennedy was highly outspoken and a very powerful president. You can say that this holds tru for someone like Trudeau, who was outspoken in many ways during his peak years. His genius had taken Canada to new highest at that time. It was when his genius and outspokenness (is that a word?) atarted to fade when he lost his people and eventually plunge his country into debt. Bush, being unable to achieve one of the two most important factors in being a good president, cannot possibly be anywhere near the word "great".

Quote:
The pressure of speaking to a large crowd is a whole lot more different than making a decision in a more private area. Since I was the computer-genius at my middle school, I was always the leader at group projects. Talking in front of that class was much harder than deciding if you were going to use powdered snow and hot glue or tape and white pieces of paper to construct the christmas banner for the school. And not everyone is as "fluent" with words as other people.
You'd be surprised how similar the situations get. You're comparing the future of the US with deciding on what paper to use? That's like comparing what you should wear to school to what university you should go into. I can neither confirm or deny that you're a genius in school or not, but I can confirm that the great gifted people I know are well spoken and can handle the pressure of looming insanity known as contests. (I'm not getting anywhere and neighter are you???)

Quote:
I find that a good some of his speaches are actually quite well done (even though he probably isn't the one who writes them). It's these little pieces of text that people choose to point out.

Very wierd question: Which would y ou have lead you: a timid studdering genius, or a fluent and inspirational speaking idiot.

You said the genius of course. But he wouldn't seem smart though. The guy who can speak would seem better. More Charisma would lead you almost mindlessly towards the man who can speak, or the man who looks best for the job, rather than the man best for the Job.
You even admit that his speeches aren't his writing entirely. Thus him being unable to write a good speech cannot speak well either under pressure.

The question's answer is obviously the genius, but you have to know that genii are completely ignorant to such matters known as politics. But the idiot, can still work because he has a team of non-elected men who will be aiding him and those men control the override against the president should the need be (aka the president doing something idiotic like thinking of atomic bombing anywhere). Having this said, no genius would join anyway, I'd settle with the idiot, being the only choice available.

The problem here is that Bush is not a genius that can't speak. He's not-so-smart, not necessarily an idiot, but not-so-smart. Add on that he cannot speak well in public. This makes for a subpar president. He is also oblivious to his own weaknesses, and him being a weaker president than the average president, thus not the best man for the job, as you were trying to continuously push.
Reply With Quote