Bob Iger Running for President?

[JoeCamel]

I agree with you- and I, too, care about each other and wish to have civil discourse. But when the most liked post on this thread- and the third one at that says this:



Then how can we have a reasonable discussion? He didn't say "no political experience"- he said "no experience". And while he says the bar has substantially been lowered- I think it has been raised- significantly. Thats something you and I and everyone else in the thread that disagrees with me will never agree on. It's truly an "agree to disagree" situation through all of this discourse.
I agree with the travel ban- you won't. There were a lot of those in France that would have agreed with you 5 years ago- but have since changed their mind. I agree with the bathroom bill- you don't. I agree with the UIL's decision in Texas to use "birth certificate" to identify gender- you don't. And the list will go on.




As for Iger- I think if he were to win, he would find a way to acquire other countries that would benefit our country as a whole. That's what he's best at.

I agree with your last statement. For what we have spent over the years pushing various agendas we could own most of the world. Why we would want that headache is beyond me but Bob does like to shop. I am with you there.

 

[Nick]

I agree with you- and I, too, care about each other and wish to have civil discourse. But when the most liked post on this thread- and the third one at that says this:



Then how can we have a reasonable discussion? He didn't say "no political experience"- he said "no experience". And while he says the bar has substantially been lowered- I think it has been raised- significantly. Thats something you and I and everyone else in the thread that disagrees with me will never agree on. It's truly an "agree to disagree" situation through all of this discourse.
I agree with the travel ban- you won't. There were a lot of those in France that would have agreed with you 5 years ago- but have since changed their mind. I agree with the bathroom bill- you don't. I agree with the UIL's decision in Texas to use "birth certificate" to identify gender- you don't. And the list will go on.




As for Iger- I think if he were to win, he would find a way to acquire other countries that would benefit our country as a whole. That's what he's best at.

You're right we won't agree on the ban, probably for different reasons than you think though.

Now personally, i'm for no ban at all. However, I am willing to ban countries that have threatened us in the past. None of the countries on Trump's ban list have posed any significant threat since 9/11 (including 9/11). Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc all pose much greater threat and killed far more people.

And let's not say that just because Obama had these 7 countries on a watch list that it matters. Obama didn't ban them, Trump did.

 

[v0latilebear]

 

[quinnmac000]

Bans and lack of globalization leads to isolationist principles that only help those on the top rather than those in the lower class leading to a lower quality of life. The fact our internet that we use isn't as slow as before is due to globalization. A lot of advancements in technology, medicine, and entertainment are due to the global communities coming together and forming initiatives. That's the reason why the US was involved pushing various agendas some right some wrong but a good many times outside of defense sector for the good of people.

Bob Iger most likely will lean left based on his past and how he ran Disney. Upon his tenure, the people under him pushed for diversity in many different sectors which then lead them to some of their most successful years yet. Inclusion makes money and the companies that have prospered lately have shown that trend to be true. Bob Iger is very good at making sure all are included. He has diplomacy as he had to work with many countries already and he already has relations with many in Congress. The thing he and both Trump seem to lack is the necessity as a executive to project empathy. A president doesn't just serve a select few people, they serve everyone big and poor. Those who can support themselves and those who can't. Bob Iger more so probably willl be more empathic to the knowledge that some wealth redistribution is necessary. (If people aren't/can't buy things, whats the point of having businesses. Not saying everyone should have an iphone but enough to cover essentials). Bob Iger's most lacking issue is his lack of imagination. He will do things done in the past to move the country in a certain direction rather than being innovative. That has been his weakness as Dis CEO and I think even as a politician that will remain. He won't be a good sell for the conservatives as they will counter with how Disney has pushed themselves as supporters of "snowflakes, support of Obama's policy and liberal causes" in addition to his backing of Hillary Clinton during the election while liberals will attack him for almost working with Trump and progressives hitting on Disney's lack of taking care of their workers. The one benefit Iger really has is he is clean like Barack Obama. Any scandal that was going to come out would've been out by now so anything that comes out most likely won't stick.

 

[Andysol]

A president doesn't just serve a select few people, they serve everyone big and poor. Those who can support themselves and those who can't.

The one benefit Iger really has is he is clean like Barack Obama. Any scandal that was going to come out would've been out by now so anything that comes out most likely won't stick.

I disagree- the president should enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch, head the military branches, and be a global ambassador of our country. The country as an entity is who he serves. The legislative branch is who is supposed to truly serve the people and the president should enforce the laws that they set forth through subordinate officers. I believe we've given the executive branch more power than was originally attended- not sure when that changed, but it certainly has. It certainly gained way too much during George W's time, continued with Obama, and is now continuing with Trump.

One would think all of Trump's scandals were behind him too- then we get the Billy Bush tape and subsequent accusations coming out of the woodwork. One would think Bill Clinton's scandals were behind him- then Lewinski happens and rape accusations pre-presidency come out of the woodwork.
No one is beyond a scandal. Not saying Iger has one- but running for president brings up a whole new vetting process. Who knows what skeletons lay in his closet.

 

[Nick]

I disagree- the president should enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch, head the military branches, and be a global ambassador of our country. The country as an entity is who he serves. The legislative branch is who is supposed to truly serve the people and the president should enforce the laws that they set forth through subordinate officers. I believe we've given the executive branch more power than was originally attended- not sure when that changed, but it certainly has. It certainly gained way too much during George W's time, continued with Obama, and is now continuing with Trump.

One would think all of Trump's scandals were behind him too- then we get the Billy Bush tape and subsequent accusations coming out of the woodwork. One would think Bill Clinton's scandals were behind him- then Lewinski happens and rape accusations pre-presidency come out of the woodwork.
No one is beyond a scandal. Not saying Iger has one- but running for president brings up a whole new vetting process. Who knows what skeletons lay in his closet.

Have you read the leaked and verified documents that came from the intel department at the DHS? Both basically said that banning individual countries does nothing and that most people come into the country ith good intentions. If they end up radicalized, it's right here at home in the US, which scoots right on by Trump's supposed "extreme vetting" (whatever that is because we already have pretty extreme vetting).

 

[Andysol]

Have you read the leaked and verified documents that came from the intel department at the DHS? Both basically said that banning individual countries does nothing and that most people come into the country ith good intentions. If they end up radicalized, it's right here at home in the US, which scoots right on by Trump's supposed "extreme vetting" (whatever that is because we already have pretty extreme vetting).

I know you really want me to reply to you, considering you've posted twice on it now- but I'm not going to take the bait. It's useless to discuss it with me, sorry.

 

[Nick]

I know you really want me to reply to you, considering you've posted twice on it now- but I'm not going to take the bait. It's useless to discuss it with me, sorry.

No, I wasn't "really wanting" you to respond to me. What you're alluding to is two posts on separate days. I honestly didn't even know I was replying to the same person.

 

[Disneyhead]

Comment deleted. Off topic.

 

[belloq87]

Comment deleted

The relevance to Bob Iger possibly running for president is...?

 

[Disneyhead]

The relevance to Bob Iger possibly running for president is...?

None.

Just like all the rest of the posts on this page.

 

[belloq87]

In that case, if people are just going to use this thread to take political shots, it should probably be locked.

As for good ol' Bob, I don't see it happening. And even if he did make moves in that direction, I can't imagine Disney's Board would be too thrilled about their (former, by that time) public face becoming an openly partisan figure. Whether or not that would have any effect on Iger running is unclear, as he'd certainly have the right to do whatever he wants as a private citizen after leaving the company.

I hope he doesn't run.

 

[Disneyhead]

You're right. I'll delete my comment.

Bob is not going to run for Prez.

At least not in the foreseeable future.

 

[Andysol]

In that case, if people are just going to use this thread to take political shots, it should probably be locked.

As for good ol' Bob, I don't see it happening. And even if he did make moves in that direction, I can't imagine Disney's Board would be too thrilled about their (former, by that time) public face becoming an openly partisan figure. Whether or not that would have any effect on Iger running is unclear, as he'd certainly have the right to do whatever he wants as a private citizen after leaving the company.

I hope he doesn't run.

You're right. I'll delete my comment.

Bob is not going to run for Prez.

At least not in the foreseeable future.

I agree @Disneyhead - and mainly because of what @belloq87 said. You become partisan and immediately alienate and piss off half the population in a day. And if that had blowback on Disney- it'd directly affect his DIS stocks which is the majority of the compensation he gets now. But if he ran at the risk of losing money in the process simply because he loves his country and wants to help it- even if I didn't agree with his policies- he'd earn my respect there quite a bit.

 

[Brian G.]

Yes, please...

Let's keep it on Iger possibly running. Let's not stray to far into today's political climate.

 

[P@n!K_Sw1tC#]

I'm so saddened that a community as nice and friendly as OrlandoUnited would feel this way.

The amount of political trepidation that exists in the two pages of this thread is exactly the problem we have in this country. It's a real shame that people feel that they cannot trust others to NOT explode over opposing points of view. The sad part is that there are people out there that treat politics a lot like religion, adopt a hive mentality, and punish those who express individual thought.

Time to take a step back and ask ourselves "What the hell are we doing?", first politics then what? This is not okay.

 

[Brian G.]

I'm so saddened that a community as nice and friendly as OrlandoUnited would feel this way.

The amount of political trepidation that exists in the two pages of this thread is exactly the problem we have in this country. It's a real shame that people feel that they cannot trust others to NOT explode over opposing points of view. The sad part is that there are people out there that treat politics a lot like religion, adopt a hive mentality, and punish those who express individual thought.

Time to take a step back and ask ourselves "What the hell are we doing?", first politics then what? This is not okay.

Talking about Trump's politics and whether they can work or not has nothing to do with Iger rumored 2020 run. If you want to get into politics... there's a thread for that.

http://forums.orlandounited.com/threads/world-news.10371/

 

[Frogki]

Though I must point out that that thread is closed, I agree with Briman on the fact that general political talk isn't on topic in this thread.
Aside from that, the problem with what you're saying is these are a friendly forum group and we do not want that to change. Unfortunately the present political climate is more polarized than any time in most people's memory.
Wrapping this up, this thread isn't the place for it. I'm happy to debate in private messaging or at such a time when the World News thread opens up again.
Till then, this is about Bob Iger running. And to be completely honest, I'm very unconvinced he's actually going to attempt it but who knows. Maybe I'll eat my hat.

 

[Nick]

While I typically like to avoid political talk on theme park forums, I must point out that this thread was always political by nature and asking to veer into general politics.

 

[Frogki]

True enough. But I understand the intentions behind Brian's statement. It's definitely a thin line to cross here.