IN-SEN: Brains or Braun?

[Xing]

That's definitely not going to do Braun in, in a primary or general. A lot of voters like the idea of having a "businessman" in power, and care little to nothing about the history and dealings of said "businessman." But let's dispel with the fiction that Braun is the "reasonable" candidate in the race.

[Xing]

That's definitely not going to do Braun in, in a primary or general. A lot of voters like the idea of having a "businessman" in power, and care little to nothing about the history and dealings of said "businessman." But let's dispel with the fiction that Braun is the "reasonable" candidate in the race.

Barack Obama circa 2012 would disagree

Hillary Clinton and the losers of the Republican primary in 2016 wouldn't, though.

[Xing]

That's definitely not going to do Braun in, in a primary or general. A lot of voters like the idea of having a "businessman" in power, and care little to nothing about the history and dealings of said "businessman." But let's dispel with the fiction that Braun is the "reasonable" candidate in the race.

Are we going to hold from now on every single business owner, government manager, etc. worldwide responsible for every single decision of their Human Resources Department? Just asking for future reference. There's a level of micromanagement required to do that that no one that actually works in the real world wants or expects.

Everyone on this thread, apply this to your own work. You're seriously blaming your CEO and actually think he did the deed? If you think that, maybe in a couple cases that's the truth, but for the rest, I know never to take your opinion on this board seriously again because you're either being contrarian on purpose, so you're lying, or you're ignorant, which isn't a good outcome for you either.

That said, "honorable businessman" is a cliche and Braun is bigging it up better than it is, but calling out a business owner of a company with thousands of employees over the firing of one employee, you're just not an educated person if you think Mike Braun personally looked at the employee's record, called someone up, and said "fire him".

The article suggests that there was much more than one troublesome incident. While it's true that you can't always blame management, when a pattern, such as overtime violations, is noticeable, the management is either responsible or being negligent of the problem. My point was that people are too quick to see "businessman" and think positively of a candidate, and this is problematic to say the least.

[Xing]

That's definitely not going to do Braun in, in a primary or general. A lot of voters like the idea of having a "businessman" in power, and care little to nothing about the history and dealings of said "businessman." But let's dispel with the fiction that Braun is the "reasonable" candidate in the race.

Are we going to hold from now on every single business owner, government manager, etc. worldwide responsible for every single decision of their Human Resources Department? Just asking for future reference. There's a level of micromanagement required to do that that no one that actually works in the real world wants or expects.

Everyone on this thread, apply this to your own work. You're seriously blaming your CEO and actually think he did the deed? If you think that, maybe in a couple cases that's the truth, but for the rest, I know never to take your opinion on this board seriously again because you're either being contrarian on purpose, so you're lying, or you're ignorant, which isn't a good outcome for you either.

That said, "honorable businessman" is a cliche and Braun is bigging it up better than it is, but calling out a business owner of a company with thousands of employees over the firing of one employee, you're just not an educated person if you think Mike Braun personally looked at the employee's record, called someone up, and said "fire him".

The article suggests that there was much more than one troublesome incident. While it's true that you can't always blame management, when a pattern, such as overtime violations, is noticeable, the management is either responsible or being negligent of the problem. My point was that people are too quick to see "businessman" and think positively of a candidate, and this is problematic to say the least.

My father worked for the Defense Department his entire life. Under your line of thinking, every problem or pattern of problems he experienced, of which they were many, the management - government appointees which were appointed by appointees of the appointed Secretary of Defense who was nominated by the President - were to blame for these problems occurring, which fell on Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama (retired before Trump took office) in a combination of responsibility and negligence on all their parts for not having their appointed Secretary of Defense handle all these problems.

The reason people think highly of "businessman" in the current climate is because it's normally an executive position where you either get stuff done or your company will fall apart and die. If the businessman is a bad businessman, all his employees go on government aid or take a job that doesn't pay as well, and all local government units - counties, cities, states, school boards - have less tax income to take care of their duties. It's a good line compared to two non-practicing attorneys - a profession where people argue one way or another based on who is paying them - that are congressmen when most Americans think Congress accomplishes nothing. And I might even vote for Messer, but that's the honest truth.

Except that the president does not "own" the state department in the same way that a CEO owns a company. My point is not that CEOs bear all of the responsibility, but when there are patterns of problems/negligence that happen under your watch, you can't deflect all o the responsibility and call yourself a "good businessman".

As for the bolded part, the fact is, many who tout themselves as businessmen do get things done... at the expense of their employees. Often businesses cut corners for the sake of making more profit with little regard for their workers. I'm tired of them being seen as good businessmen because their company ended up with a strong bottom line.

[Xing]

That's definitely not going to do Braun in, in a primary or general. A lot of voters like the idea of having a "businessman" in power, and care little to nothing about the history and dealings of said "businessman." But let's dispel with the fiction that Braun is the "reasonable" candidate in the race.

Are we going to hold from now on every single business owner, government manager, etc. worldwide responsible for every single decision of their Human Resources Department? Just asking for future reference. There's a level of micromanagement required to do that that no one that actually works in the real world wants or expects.

Everyone on this thread, apply this to your own work. You're seriously blaming your CEO and actually think he did the deed? If you think that, maybe in a couple cases that's the truth, but for the rest, I know never to take your opinion on this board seriously again because you're either being contrarian on purpose, so you're lying, or you're ignorant, which isn't a good outcome for you either.

That said, "honorable businessman" is a cliche and Braun is bigging it up better than it is, but calling out a business owner of a company with thousands of employees over the firing of one employee, you're just not an educated person if you think Mike Braun personally looked at the employee's record, called someone up, and said "fire him".

The article suggests that there was much more than one troublesome incident. While it's true that you can't always blame management, when a pattern, such as overtime violations, is noticeable, the management is either responsible or being negligent of the problem. My point was that people are too quick to see "businessman" and think positively of a candidate, and this is problematic to say the least.

My father worked for the Defense Department his entire life. Under your line of thinking, every problem or pattern of problems he experienced, of which they were many, the management - government appointees which were appointed by appointees of the appointed Secretary of Defense who was nominated by the President - were to blame for these problems occurring, which fell on Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama (retired before Trump took office) in a combination of responsibility and negligence on all their parts for not having their appointed Secretary of Defense handle all these problems.

The reason people think highly of "businessman" in the current climate is because it's normally an executive position where you either get stuff done or your company will fall apart and die. If the businessman is a bad businessman, all his employees go on government aid or take a job that doesn't pay as well, and all local government units - counties, cities, states, school boards - have less tax income to take care of their duties. It's a good line compared to two non-practicing attorneys - a profession where people argue one way or another based on who is paying them - that are congressmen when most Americans think Congress accomplishes nothing. And I might even vote for Messer, but that's the honest truth.

Except that the president does not "own" the state department in the same way that a CEO owns a company. My point is not that CEOs bear all of the responsibility, but when there are patterns of problems/negligence that happen under your watch, you can't deflect all o the responsibility and call yourself a "good businessman".

Yes, because from working in the real world, I and everyone else knows that the underlings make sure the CEO and the Board of Directors know absolutely everything...

So when there are patterns of problems/negligence that happen in a cabinet department, why do people attack the president? (That's true for whichever party is in the White House. Since I've reached adulthood, I could cite multiple examples for the last 3 presidents.)

You're having your cake and eating it too a bit in your attempt at this argument. You want to push argument A, you have to either accept the corollary to that or withdraw your argument. CEOs are responsible for the business, just as the President is responsible for the Defense Department, that does not they are responsible for every single low-level decision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not going to sit here and act like the entire group are saints. Morals and ethics are not defined by vocation. But most people have a higher opinion of them as a group than they do politicians as a group at the moment. If Braun and his staff didn't think voters liked hearing he was a successful businessman, he wouldn't be stating it. If Rokita and Messer thought voters would be impressed with their congressional experience, they would be citing it more often than they are.

My point was that it's not a direct parallel, comparing the president to the State Department and a CEO to his company. If there is a pattern of corruption in the State Department, though, does the President bear no responsibility?

I believe that businessman who run for office are the ones who want to have their cake and eat it too. They like to take credit for the success of their company, while deflecting any responsibility for poor treatment/lack of fair compensation for their workers on HR or management at a lower level.

And I'm aware that voters see businessmen more favorably than politicians and I understand why. I'm simply pointing out why it's problematic. And as I said, I don't think this is going to hurt Braun much, if at all.

[Xing]

Watch it end up being another tie, since we've been getting a lot of those recently.

[Xing]

inb4 "Braun is a recruitment fail/the worst Republican challenger of the cycle"

[Xing]

Richard Lugar is refusing to endorse in this race calls both candidates able and having good campaigns
https://fox59.com/2018/09/25/former-sen-richard-lugar-wont-endorse-braun-or-donnelly-in-u-s-senate-race/

Dang, didn't he endorse Mourdock in 2012?

[Xing]

Donnelly's decision probably isn't going to change any votes. Tilt D -> Tilt D.

[Xing]

Donnelly's decision probably isn't going to change any votes. Tilt D -> Tilt D.

Maybe not, but it’s all about base turnout.

And that works both ways, which is why I don't think it changes this race.

[Xing]

Considering that Donnelly won 4 out of 5 Obama/Trump counties (I'm assuming he won Porter, it's not showing up), and just barely lost the 5th one, I don't think we can conclude that Obama/Trump voters are "never coming back." Or maybe you should ask Senators Vukmir, James, Renacci, and Barletta, or third term Governor Walker about how much Obama/Trump voters helped them. Clearly some can be won back, and Donnelly lost not because of Obama/Trump voters, but because Democrats aren't winning Indiana as long as we're this polarized.