Do any of these 5 men seem like they are able to command respect

Because we dont live in an age of stabby stabby for foody foody, hunter. We want people that understand economics.

File: chairman of the board.jpg (86KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 768x1024px

They are all low-energy unlike Jeb.

No because they're not dictators dipshit. The president is not the leader of a country. They simply fall into the executive branch. There are also the legislature branch and judicial branch.

Go learn how the government works.

>>1842335
>hgih-energy-guacman-stacking-chiars-at-hgih-speed.jpg

>>1842335
I miss jebposting so much desu

>All at least 6 foot tall
>average and above looking
>Highly charismatic and intelligent
>inb4 Bush Jr wasn't smart

There is a reason why they climbed to the highest position in their society.

>>1842347
Good answer, now can you articulate a solid case for why bureaucracy is preferable to leadership? From what I see bureaucrats are unaccountable for consequences, the agencies are rewarded for incompetence (The X agency makes X worse, give X agency more money since X is getting worse, repeat), their hierarchies are built on seniority and patronage. Beurocracies compete for funding evolving them to relentlessly pilfer the commons rather than act as stewards. They grow the invasive power of the state while distributing the power to a million micro tyrants. The whole concept of the public servant is a lie. Can you rebut this?

>>1842766
Wait, you think bureaucrats are all in the public service? Who do you think does the paperwork for every large corp?

>>1842766
In response to your "bureaucracy" vs. "leadership" point: that is nonsense. No man can admnister a country-sized organization on his own. Larger organizations need more clerks. Even brutes like Ghengis Khan had bureaucracies under them.

Obama and Clinton would probably have high ranking social positions based on their charisma.

Aww someone is a little mad that no living president will support his candidate.

>>1842778
I'm no fan of large corps employing bureaucracies either, but the better corps are actually run like monarchies with feudal systems rather than bureaucratic ones. That is to say they have leaders rather than managers who are rewarded for their service, thus why they have layoffs while layoffs are unheard of in government jobs unless congress cut their funding in which case they'll fire their most essential people in a game of chicken to get their funding back.

>>1842785
It's the difference in leadership vs management. Leaders get to own their results, they are interested in the consequences since they own them. Bureaucrats don't own their consequences. Avoiding bureaucratization is difficult as organizations grow larger, it's why smaller groups are able to survive in the first place while large ones grow brittle and unwieldy. Empires have inherent weaknesses.

>>1842536
Being president isn't the highest position, you work like a slave for four years and then the retard after you get to shit all over everything you did. You don't even get your own house, you have to live in a shitty colonial building. Supermagnates are far above presidents.

>>1842803
>the better corps are actually run like monarchies with feudal systems rather than bureaucratic ones
No. Large corps often have many subsidiaries that have subsidiaries of their own, yes, but for every one of those there is bureaucracy.

And CEOs and such aren't supposed to be supreme leaders like in a monarchical system. They are generally subjected to boards of directors and many stockholders. (Lots of corporate leaders crash corps and markets while fleeing on golden parachutes, but that's to show successful corporations and successful CEOs are not necessarily correlated with each other.)

>>1842803
>I'm no fan of large corps employing bureaucracies either

Well, presumably if their was an alternative that worked better, that company would work more efficiently than the others, sell cheaper products, and BTFO everyone else.

At which point the investors in other companies would demand that the new changes be adopted in their company too.

>>1842814
By your definition, only absolute monarchs and perhaps feudal kings are leaders.

And those guys could totally sell their lands (to which some people might've been legally bonded to) or trash them for resources for unrelated endeavours. Like Richard I of England, who was never around and just sunk his estate into his armies so he could play human chess against Saladin.

Legitimately think Obama would do well, and has charisma.

But only in a 21st century setting.

>>1842536
Bush jr. Is 5'10 you dumb fuck

>>1842321
Only Bill is in a power position; he's very aware of body language.

Hands in pockets? Hands protecting genitals? Hands dangling loosely?

beta males

>>1842879
Obama flinched because Bush started edging to his side. Dude has no arm room but is too self-counscious to tell Bush off.

File: 1473964997076.gif (3MB, 461x285px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 461x285px

>>1842321
>Do any of these 5 men seem like they are able to command respect and radiate power? Like if you released them and 10,000 people onto an island in the Pacific and came back a year later would you expect any of them to be at the top of social food chain?
>How do such lame inoffensive characters come to control the most powerful military in the world? Why don't more ruthless warlords come to power like in my Star Trek Klingon fanfics?
Sure none of them would end up as the leaders in such a scenario in the first moment, but as time progresses and generations pass, they would eventually make their way into power through bureaucracy. They would be the grand grand grand grand greatchildren of the first leaders of the nation and these grandchildren's best friends.
The men in your picture, OP, all started out from wealthy families (in many cases already involved with politics), which got them university degrees, which got them into small time politics, which got them into relevant politics, which got them into presidential canditacy, which got them into the place they were. In other words, the current state of politics in the United States is an almost impenetrable fortress of bureaucracy in which you can only ascent to a higher level if you have so many connections that you simply can't break them, and you are basically a yes-man doormat who will do whatever these connections tell you to do. That's why the United States of America is being so slow in its journey in the road that is progress. It would take someone who is completely independent, that has no such ties and campaings on their own to change all that starting from the top. And that's why I'm voting for Trump.

>>1842826
The larger Corps are more bureaucratic, the main difference between corporate fiefdoms and medieval fiefdoms is that the modern version treats surfs as a commons and thus does nothing to act as stewards for maintaining them while medieval lords were responsible for their surfs since they were owned (for the exact same reasons you treat a rental worse than something owned). Private Corps on the other hand really do run on the whim of the CEO and in many cases they keep their Corps completely separate sometimes appointing CEOs while retaining ownership.

>>1842903
Obama is a feckless coward. How can you not know this after almost 8 years?

>>1842832
Factor in alliances with government to make a legal environment that favors large corps as much as possible. Competing business models are often legislated against, trollies one of the most famous examples. It's basically soft economic fascism. Granted being able to squeeze suppliers is nice but that's really a short term thing that hurts industry in the long run.

>>1842321
Bill got some mad pussy at least.

>>1842914
>the main difference between corporate fiefdoms and medieval fiefdoms is that the modern version treats surfs as a commons and thus does nothing to act as stewards for maintaining them while medieval lords were responsible for their surfs since they were owned
Serfs were treated worse because they couldn't choose to work for someone else. Corporations actually have reasons to try to provide better benefits to get better workers than other corporations.

>>1842964
It's hopeless. Multi-millionaire black athletes and musicians call themselves "slaves".

>>1842853
Think local, leadership is about ownership and influence. At the small scale leadership is everywhere. I'm of the notion that when leaders see only forests and lose sight of the trees they have lost a measure of control and delegated too far, there's a reason empires are short lived.

>>1842818
And then you make speeches for $100k for the rest of your life.

>>1842964
Valid point, having exit options does help. However it's white collar and skilled workers who have exit options, and so too did the skilled freemen. The base stock on the other hand, which really needs that stewardship, ownership benefits them.

File: images.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>1842321
If you were to release an orchestra on a deserted island, the conductor might not lead the people there. Wtf, why do they even let him conduct the orchestra??

This is you OP

>>1843027
>highly specialized leadership role for some specific task is the same as the leadership role that has access to the nuclear football, can send the USMC literally anywhere he wants, and has executive order powers
nice try

>>1842321
>if you released them and 10,000 people onto an island in the Pacific
Different situations call for different skill sets.

To begin with tall muscular thugs would be dominant as people begin to starve and fight over limited resources. They might initially care about American ideals, the president's celebrity status and the idea that once this is over they might be rewarded if they help the president, however when starving and desperate this will break down.

After the dust has settled the thugs would fight each other over land and take fish and food from those working the land and stretches of sea, possibly holding family members hostage so fishermen don't flee using their rafts, presenting themselves as offering "protection".

Soon the thugs will be at a disadvantage compared to those with intelligence and leadership skills who can manage their little fiefdoms better, though leaders would still need to be soldiers to an extent. Now ex-marines and the like will creep ahead of common thugs, Obama would still be useful as a propaganda showpice, he would just be a puppet though.

>>1843033
So how are those skills needed in an deserted island with no connection the civilization?
It helps about as much as being able to conduct an orchestra.

>>1843058
I agree with the first part of this post.
The ones best suited to deal with the new situation will be the ones the others turn to for leadership.

>>1843059
presumably a president's soft skills/skills of manipulation/silver tongue and organizational experience would be very transferable to a stuck on an island type of situation. or at least a lot more useful than merely being a conductor.

look at leaders of prison gangs it's never some strong boneheaded brute but always some dainty manlet with God tier manipulation skills and a rep for being "cray"

>>1843033

Running a society of 10,000 people freshly deposited on a desert island and running a democratic country of millions are pretty different ballgames, anon. Not that I think elected officials are always (or even usually) qualified for their responsibilities.

Drop 10,000 people on a desert island with no laws and you'll probably have a power struggle pretty quick. The question is whether you want to be lead by the guy a majority voted for, or led by the guy who had stronger cronies and put a rock to the head of the ones who disagreed with him.

>>1843058
So Obama would be like the Japanese Emperor under a shogunate, eh?

Could we get the Founding Fathers to replace the apostoles of Christ in this new civilization?

There's a reason no country today is lead by a literally strong fighter, able to defeat all other men around.

inb4 some retard posts the botox manlet

Are 4 chan users so young they dont remember how successful Clinton was?

Clinton was president in the 90s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, at the highest point ever of American power in the world, without competition of Europe or China.

The economy grew a lot, and Clinton had budget superavit, in the late 90s economists wondered how a world in which the USA has no debt would be.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Because of that the american dollar was an extremely strong currency.

That all changed with the tax cuts to the rich that never paid themselves of Bush JR, and his war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Pop culture was also better in the 90s, rock was still alive because of grunge, and later alternative rock, in animation you had shows like Simpsons in their prime, early south park, ren and stimpy, animaniacs etc, you had tv shows like Seinfeld.

The rest of the world looked at the USA and thought, they must be really puritans if they want to impeach him for a Blow job.

>>1843164
that's cool and all but it's obviously not what this thread is about.

File: ork computah.jpg (104KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 512x512px

>ooga booga why dees skinny bois run cuntry? i bet i cud beet dem up.

>>1843119
Obama would be the guy cutting the bamboo.

>>1843164
>the president is the president so he literally IS the economy and the culture and the military too and everything that happens there is thanks to him

>>1843164
Everything Newt's '94 Congress did with the Contract With America, Clinton now takes credit for. Even though they dragged him kicking and screaming all the way.

>t. voted for Reagan

File: oldfag.jpg (26KB, 439x409px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 439x409px

>>1843179
>voted for Reagan
How old are you?

>>1843179
Why do conservashits alternate between saying the Clinton years weren't all that great and that the surplus was a lie and giving all of the credit to the Republicans?

>>1842321

We live in the age of lawyers and accountants.

This niggas can pull off some sick loopholes you wouldnt believe.

>>1842467
I miss Jeb

>>1843197
Most of the American presidents were lawyers tho, not just recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_occupation

>>1843071
Probably depends on how desperate people are. If they are faced with starvation people will take greater risks and it is more due to luck which big guy rises to the top, however if food is plentiful people might rally round an army officer.

>>1843119
If they were transported to an island on an alien world and stuck there I expect highly educated people like Obama would commit themselves to writing down everything they know for future generations who might in turn idolize these texts. They might identify him as some kind of philosopher King presiding over the exodus who willingly relinquished authority like Cincinnatus. Or Obama could die from dysentry after a few months while people are still fighting over crab meat.

>>1842357
>>1842467
>>1843220

Daily reminder that Jeb! would have actually beaten Hillary. The GOP screwed themselves over so hard by picking Trump.

Not every president needs to be a prowrestler.

Daily reminder than Jeb! Would've ripped out ANY terrorists testicles and ate them with guac live on FOX. The GOP really screwed themselves over so hard by picking Trump

>>1842984
>le Plato man
>a global economic system of 8 billion people

hhehehe, fuck off back to your cave and look at the wall

>>1842536
carter is 5'8-9 bush jr is 5'11 max

>>1843394
Implying putting everything together under single points of failure is a good idea. Capitalism works well to the extent it's able to act locally, giant bureaucratic centralization undermines this. There's a huge market outside of one size fits all atomization plebshit, it's not economic forces that resist it, but political ones.

>>1843351
The GOP can't choose their presidential nominee because they allow delegates to cast their support independent from the GOP's position as long as they belong to the republican party. unlike the dems who created a coalition to remove bernie's ticket.

>>1842321
They are all charismatic as fuck.
Obama is literally one of the most bro-tier presidents and not on a policy basis, I'm saying if I could have a beer with any president since 1900, it would be Obama (with two or three exceptions).
Clinton was also charismatic, he was a fucking lady killer on top of that, he fucked lodsebitches (mostly consensual).
George W Bush is literally a retarded monkey, Sr is probably cooler I don't know much about him desu.
Jimmy Carter is Jimmy Carter, he did not get elected twice.

>>1843351
Anyone could beat Hillary Clinton. If Clinton runs for a second term she's gonna fucking lose so hard unless she actually manages to be a decent president, and even then there's still a good 40% of Americans who would never vote for her even if she guaranteed free blowjobs and American dominance for the next 300 years.

>>1842903
>Dude has no arm room but is too self-counscious to tell Bush off.
He probably didn't want Bush Sr to have a heart attack once he realized a black man was talking to him

File: image.jpg (174KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1280x720px

>>1842911
>Trump isn't a billionaire descendant of politicians.

Kill yourself my man.

>>1843194
Not quite. They criticize the fact that liberals think the surplus was all because of Clinton but don't give credit to Congress that controls most spending. Newt Gingrich's congress has a lot to do with that surplus but liberals never admit this

>>1843351
Yeah but can we trust another bush ?

>>1844239
If only americans were smarter and more redpilled it will be easy for trump to beat her

>>1842766

>Good answer, now can you articulate a solid case for why bureaucracy is preferable to leadership?

Bureaucratic systems prevent despotism.

The sheer inefficiency of bureaucracy is its greatest strength in addition to being its greatest weakness.

>>1843351
nice meme