President?

[Larry Gude]

What SHOULD their resume be?

The goal here is to set out some expectations of what maybe ought to be part of the mix and, just as important, what should not be acceptable.


If a woman, it seems obvious that some sort of executive experience would be nice. Should they have had kids? Is no kids a dis-qualifier? Should they have been a stay at home mom for the first 10 years or so? Should they have served? What branch? What should their school years look like? Jock? Geek? Brain? Arts?

If a guy, should he have served? What branch? How long? Again, some executive experience would seem obvious as it is an executive position. School experience? Kids? What kind of dad?

I think elite schooling should be disqualifying, anything Ivy League. I think being a lawyer should be disqualifying. I think if you were never there as a parent should be disqualifying. I think being a pilot should be disqualifying. I think you should have 2 years as an infantryman in the army. I think being a Marine should be disqualifying. I don't think you should have excelled at anything. I think you should have played some sports and been OK at them but not a captain or star. I think you should have some art, some philosophy, a bunch of history and more than a passing acquaintance with hard sciences and engineering. I think you should have been in a bit of trouble. I think you should have some work experience both in small business, even if it was waiting and/or busing as well as some corporate experience. I think if you ever sold, promoted or marketed anything after high school you should be disqualified or, at the very least, be held in complete suspicion.

I think we ought to start valuing people who struggled, were turned down some, rejected some, not picked some times, who over came, who were not pursuing law, who were engaged parents, who were not elite. Reagan worked, over came. Clinton, same thing. Bush 41 was shot at but was otherwise an elite. Same for 43 and Obama. I don't see how elite people are making good politicians and presidents.

Thoughts?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

I would like to see someone who surrounded themselves with competent people, who in turn, surrounded themselves by competent people. The government is a too huge with too many fiefdoms that overlap in responsibilities. Maybe someone who had supervised folks and accomplished what was expected of them.

 

[Hijinx]

Competence was in no way a qualification to be appointed to the Obama Administration.

 

[Larry Gude]

I would like to see someone who surrounded themselves with competent people, who in turn, surrounded themselves by competent people. The government is a too huge with too many fiefdoms that overlap in responsibilities. Maybe someone who had supervised folks and accomplished what was expected of them.

That's certainly part of the problem; the damn machine is so enormous, how much is a president really in charge in the first place? What is it, something like 20% is all of the budget the congress and executive can touch anyway?

Maybe what we really need is a plumber!

 

[Grumpy]

; the damn machine is so enormous,

1 time 6 year term, neutered politically upon inauguration, does the nations business only, not any political party campaigning. Travel for nation's business only. All meetings/conferences attended by at least 1 rep from both political parties and so on and so on...

Pie in the sky stuff, obviously, just sick of the last 30 years of reading crap like 'strategy meeting with party folks' , on travel to California for a fund raiser, etc

 

[Hijinx]

Pie in the sky stuff, obviously, just sick of the last 30 years of reading crap like 'strategy meeting with party folks' , on travel to California for a fund raiser, etc

Vacations in Martha's Vineyard, Christmas in Hawaii, Travel to California on Separate planes for TV shows there on the same day,Trips to Africa. Skiing at Vail,

 

[Larry Gude]

1 time 6 year term, neutered politically upon inauguration, does the nations business only, not any political party campaigning. Travel for nation's business only. All meetings/conferences attended by at least 1 rep from both political parties and so on and so on...

Pie in the sky stuff, obviously, just sick of the last 30 years of reading crap like 'strategy meeting with party folks' , on travel to California for a fund raiser, etc

Pie in the sky my ass. I'm in!!!! That's 2....

 

[PsyOps]

How about we start with someone who actually gives a damn about the constitution - oh, and is honest.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

I would like to see someone who surrounded themselves with competent people, who in turn, surrounded themselves by competent people. The government is a too huge with too many fiefdoms that overlap in responsibilities. Maybe someone who had supervised folks and accomplished what was expected of them.

Well look who has been let out of the nut house!

 

[kom526]

Why would being a Marine be disqualifying but 2 years as an infantryman in the army ok?

 

[Hijinx]

Pie in the sky my ass. I'm in!!!! That's 2....

Make it 4 years and I am in too.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

I would be happy if we would not anoint the ivy league crowd. Hell what is wrong with someone who got an education at a state school, public high school etc.

As far as resume goes I don't think any one thing or lack of one thing qualifies or disqualifies someone but their overall experience should be what matters. High up people always tell me to get ahead you have to change jobs every three years, I think they are right, but I think that is BS. If they totally screw the pooch they have the excuse that they haven't been doing that job long. In my field to get anywhere you have to be in it 10+ years to learn it at the expert level, many longer than that. Jobs held are one thing, but accomplishments and how adversity was handled is much more important, unfortunately hard to measure and very easily embellished.

Another thing, anyone that uses buzz words on a regular basis should be disqualified.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

I would be happy if we would not anoint the ivy league crowd. Hell what is wrong with someone who got an education at a state school, public high school etc.

There's a lot wrong with those educated in government schools. Chief among the things wrong is that government schools produce soulless and brainwashed robots. No progress will be made in fixing anything that is wrong until the indoctrination of our children with statism ends.

 

[kom526]

There's a lot wrong with those educated in government schools. Chief among the things wrong is that government schools produce soulless and brainwashed robots. No progress will be made in fixing anything that is wrong until the indoctrination of our children with statism ends.

Of course we can keep trying to elect people from "Ivy League" schools, like this screaming harpy.
[video=youtube;7QqgNcktbSA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QqgNcktbSA[/video]

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Of course we can keep trying to elect people from "Ivy League" schools, like this screaming harpy.

Of course there are many private schooling options other than "Ivy League" schools if those schools are Pavlovian for you.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

There's a lot wrong with those educated in government schools. Chief among the things wrong is that government schools produce soulless and brainwashed robots. No progress will be made in fixing anything that is wrong until the indoctrination of our children with statism ends.

That is extremely overblown. In 23 years I have attended three different state schools in three different states and nobody ever tried to indoctrinate me or turn me into a soulless robot.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

That is extremely overblown. In 23 years I have attended three different state schools in three different states and nobody ever tried to indoctrinate me or turn me into a soulless robot.

OK, so the exception that proves the rule?

 

[PeoplesElbow]

OK, so the exception that proves the rule?

That would be your theory. I know that you know the media picks out exceptions to the rule all of the time to display as the normal, however when it fits your beliefs you are willing to ignore that, pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[SamSpade]

I've mentioned this a few times.

In the David versus Goliath story, much is made of the fact that David is a boy fighting against a giant who has been fighting all his life.

What people don't always read is the part where he tells King Saul that he has ALREADY KILLED a lion and a bear all by himself. Presumably with little more than his sling.

What matters is - can they do the job? Have they shown that they can actually do the job already? I don't care if they're a rich out of touch braggart or a war-mongering jerk. I don't care if they're as soft-spoken as Ghandi or as stupid as Forrest Gump.

Have they shown that they can already do the job?

 

[Gilligan]

Have they shown that they can already do the job?

The country elected a pissant in 2008 that had never even HAD a job....so I'm not holding my breath this time.