Re: Which Presidential primary race do you think will be the most interesting in 2016
Well first, note that I specifically suggested that experience as a CEO or COO would not, imho, be direct experience but indirect to the specific job of the POTUS.
In the past few years, generally speaking, with CEO's and COO's having been in trouble with the feds, and having that type of experience of how to try to circumvent laws, and breaking laws,
no thanks, I wouldn't want someone chosen as our president who knows how to milk and bilk the banking system, who have left shareholders holding the bag, which are basically white collar criminals. Don't we believe that we've seen and had enough of this?
Second, the sincerity of your argument somewhat comes into question based on the seeming underlining message based on your words. Your inclusion of millionaire and billionaire (not jobs) mixed in with actual job titles, and your inclusion of Romney as an example of someone whose experience is this is question. It ignores that Romney had what most experts suggest is the closest directly relevant experience to POTUS...being the Chief Executive of a Governmental Entity on the state level, IE Governor.
My sincerity comes into question? By whom, you? And who might you be to judge someones sincerity after all we've seen of crooked CEO', COO's and lousy politicians? Who are you to question the sincerity of someone you do not know? By hinging your belief upon a few words which were typed? You seem to pass judgement pretty damned quick on someone you do not know.
Third, I can't help but notice you avoided completely answering the question as to whether or not this seeming standard you are suggesting applies to all jobs, or if you simply have this strange mentality when it comes to the President and the President alone.
I would expect condescension from another conservative, but from a conservative moderator at that?
I believe some sort of litmus test should be administered to any candidate for a job, employment or politics. Experience for a job is good, but what kind of experience a person has for a certain type of job is what matters. If we're going to seek people for the office of POTUS, we should at least be comforted in knowing that the person running for office has at least some experience with US Laws, and at least knows our constitutional laws.
Fourth, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between talking about qualities or experiences you prefer in a Presidential candidate and qualities and experiences that directly relate as "Experience" to the speciifc job duties of a Presidency.
Everyone's preferences are different, those I mentioned are just a few or a couple.
I may PREFER that a President has some experience in a private sector company, specifically a small business. However, simply because I'd PREFER they have that experience doesn't mean I'm arrogant enough to believe my preference directly means that's the most applicable experience to being a President. I may PREFER that a President be a historical scholar with a deep understanding of the views and ideas of the Founders. But I'm not going to sit here and try to suggest a Historical Scholar has the better resume of experience speficially related to the task of being President than a Govenor. That doesn't mean I don't think the Historian may not make a better president...experience alone doesn't determine that...but it does mean I'm not egotistical enough to think that simply because I prefer something that magically means it has direct experience.
Being the Chief Executive of a State Government is directly related experience to the specific duties of being a Chief Executive of the Federal Government.
Being a Constitutional Laywer may relate to certain aspects of a POTUS's job, but it's not direct experience relating specifically to the day to day duties, responsabilities, and expectations of the job.
It's perfectly reasonable, in theory, to not like someone with a ton of corporate experience to be President (Just like it's perfectly reasonable, in theory, to not like someone whose never or rarely worked in a traditional private sector job to be POTUS). It's even perfectly reasonable to suggest that such a factor outweighs actual job related experience the person has. But it's just not a logical argument to suggest that the only direct type of experience for POTUS is being POTUS, and every other form of experience is somehow on equal footing.
I would prefer someone who doesn't know how to use our legal system for personal or political game or gain. I mentioned Romney because of his corporate track record of putting people out of work. By the purchase or overtaking of companies on the ropes, he is not a venture capitalist, he is more of a vulture capitalist. His past political experience is well noted, which why some people viewed him as an insider. Do we need a millionaire who has used the system for his benefit, and his political experience for the benefit of corporate America? I think not.
![Omega_man_(1971)[1].jpg](https://debatepolitics.com/data/attachments/50/50274-13f46aed500b463cebe14dab0c752ee0.jpg "Omega_man_(1971)[1].jpg")
