- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 5,775
- Reaction score
- 2,064
- Location
- wisconSIN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Which Presidential primary race do you think will be the most interesting in 2016
I am thinking that's why with Obama's lack of experience in politics was elected, people viewed him as a constitutional scholar-teacher of constitutional law.
I might like to see a law professor as president.
And, I might add, in response to the Moderator's post so I'm not wasting time and space here....
I believe that just because a person is a CEO, a COO of a corporation, or a millionaire, billionaire that's run a corp. or business in the past does not mean they are or have the qualifications or experience to become president (Romney). The last thing America needs is an elitist who has made millions off of the backs and misgivings of other people or hostile company take overs. That's not an admirable quality in my mind.
I'd really like to see a centrist run for POTUS, one that has superb negotiating skills, and not necessarily a business minded person, a centrist, if you will.
I believe I would prefer a person who had experience in law or one that was or had been a constitutional scholar as a candidate.Silly question.
People rarely move between jobs at the same level of seniority or responsibility. People move up, and are selected to do so on the basis of how they have performed in lesser, but comparable tasks. So, what kind of prior experience might be relevant for an aspiring POTUS? Governor of a state? Cabinet minister? VPOTUS? Mayor of a major city? I'd argue that any of those things would provide a better grounding in the job than spending just 3 years in the Senate, and 7 in the state senate. Can you think of another president with less relevant experience?
I am thinking that's why with Obama's lack of experience in politics was elected, people viewed him as a constitutional scholar-teacher of constitutional law.
I might like to see a law professor as president.
So if you wre hiring a Senior Programer for your software company, the only people with "experience" would be other "senior programers". Someone who was just a "Programer" would have as much "experience" as a fry cook at McDonalds to you, because both didn't have past "experience" specfically being a "Senior Programer"?
If you were looking for an Executive Chef, a person who was previously a Sous-Chef would have as much "experience" in your eyes as a bus driver?
If you were looknig for a CEO of Fortune 500 company, the COO of another fortune 500 company would have as much "experience" as the manager at the local Staples?
From a political science stand point, it's long been established that the President of the United States serves as two primary job roles...
Chief Executive of the Federal Government and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military. As such, when speaking of experience, it are those two aspects of the job that it most commonly relates.
When speaking about DIRECT experience for those two jobs, you're looking at two primary things:
In terms of being Chief Executive of a Governmental Body, the next "tier down" same type experience is that of a Governorship. A step down from there would be a Mayoral role, with differing weight given to the complexity of the location being governed (For example, a governor of New York is likely to be looked at in experience typically closer to a Governor, where as the Mayor of Roanoke Virginia would likely be laughed off stage). Alongside this would be experience as the Vice President, which would slide in right above "governor" in terms of levels of experience.
In terms of being Commander-in-Chief, the next "tier down" same type experience is that of a Generalship. From there you take additional steps down through the various ranks of the military. We've seen in our countries history times where the experience lending itself to CIC has been more important to the voting population than that of the Chief Executive. However, of the two, CIC experience is generally more rare when it comes to the primary experience for the job.
And, I might add, in response to the Moderator's post so I'm not wasting time and space here....
I believe that just because a person is a CEO, a COO of a corporation, or a millionaire, billionaire that's run a corp. or business in the past does not mean they are or have the qualifications or experience to become president (Romney). The last thing America needs is an elitist who has made millions off of the backs and misgivings of other people or hostile company take overs. That's not an admirable quality in my mind.
I'd really like to see a centrist run for POTUS, one that has superb negotiating skills, and not necessarily a business minded person, a centrist, if you will.