Posted on Nov 8, 2015
Should POTUS base Leadership Decisions on Checking the Political Box or Make Tough Unpopular Decisions When Needed?
6.79K
54
27
12
12
0
Should POTUS base Leadership Decisions on Checking the Political Box or Make Tough Unpopular Decisions When Needed?
What are your thought's and opinion's RP Members?
We've seen a number of high leadership decisions throughout history made by past and present POTUS' that really were about checking a political agenda or box for their memoires for a future book to sell.
Isn't it about time we start demanding as a people, as a country, and as a society that we get and elect a POTUS that isn't worried about popularity, but about making the tough decisions that aren't going to be popular in the beginning, but result in 2nd and 3rd Order Affects that will benefit us ALL as a country?
What are your thought's and opinion's RP Members?
We've seen a number of high leadership decisions throughout history made by past and present POTUS' that really were about checking a political agenda or box for their memoires for a future book to sell.
Isn't it about time we start demanding as a people, as a country, and as a society that we get and elect a POTUS that isn't worried about popularity, but about making the tough decisions that aren't going to be popular in the beginning, but result in 2nd and 3rd Order Affects that will benefit us ALL as a country?
Office of the President (POTUS)
Decisions
Leadership
Edited 8 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
7
7
0
Ronald Reagan A Soldiers Pledge Listen Learn Remember
A very inspirational speech by Ronald Reagan. This is what a President is supposed to sound like. Listen, learn and remember who we are!
COL Mikel J. Burroughs POTHUS, should use President Ronald Reagan as an example, he went against the grain against the cold war and as a result look at Europe nowadays with democracy growing. He was for the American people of the people. I like his Soldiers Pledge speech it summons up what the meaning of "too much is given, much is required".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt8y18YFH70
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt8y18YFH70
(7)
(0)
CSM Michael J. Uhlig
Thanks for bringing this back to the forefront SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL, very impactful and very appropriate!
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
In the position of POTUS, you should be neither Democrat or Republican - you should be an AMERICAN FIRST! You should no longer be affiliated with a party. Too many presidents have worried too much about pleasing a party and toeing the party line and not enough time thinking what's best for WE THE PEOPLE. Case in point - Obama care. If it was truly meant to help the American people, then they (we the people) would have been able to keep the insurance they had, the doctors they had and providing a path of coverage to those who didn't have it. Yet all one needs to do is "follow the money" to find out who's making a bundle from it. We know it wasn't done the correct way with no concern for the working class people. Just look at how many insurance exchanges who have or are on the verge of failure.
(5)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGM Mikel Dawson - Sergeant Major; I doubt that it will surprise you, but that is what the "Founding Fathers" had "Originally Intended" when they established an "Executive Branch" which was to ADMINISTER the laws passed by the "Legislative Branch" and to do so in the best interests of the whole country.
I also agree that the implementation of "universal medical insurance coverage" was badly handled. HOWEVER, if the private insurance companies had had their way then the "government plan" would have had to take on all of the "high risk" people while the "for profit" plans kept the "low risk" people. Once that had shaken out, the next step would have been for the "for profit" plans to raise their rates to just under the rates for the "government" plans - after all SOME saving is better than NO saving. [We will completely ignore that the actuarial cost of the "for profit" plans had actually decreased at the same time as they had increased the amount that they were charging (the difference would have yielded greatly increased profits and "everyone knows" that profits are a "good thing").]
I also agree that the implementation of "universal medical insurance coverage" was badly handled. HOWEVER, if the private insurance companies had had their way then the "government plan" would have had to take on all of the "high risk" people while the "for profit" plans kept the "low risk" people. Once that had shaken out, the next step would have been for the "for profit" plans to raise their rates to just under the rates for the "government" plans - after all SOME saving is better than NO saving. [We will completely ignore that the actuarial cost of the "for profit" plans had actually decreased at the same time as they had increased the amount that they were charging (the difference would have yielded greatly increased profits and "everyone knows" that profits are a "good thing").]
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGM Mikel Dawson - Sergeant Major; You might have to tell that to someone newly commissioned, but ...
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
All good leaders make the tough decision not the popular or political one
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google