What Qualifications Should a Presidential Candidate Have?

[McBell]

I quote:

What qualifications should a candidate for President have?

Again, the qualifications have been pre-ordained.

*yawn*
Repeating a bold empty claim doe snot make your bold empty claim true.

 

[BSM1]

I think the thread is about what we'd like to see
over & above the basic legal qualifications.

Obviously.

Qualifications meant, obviously, more than the legal requirements. It meant job qualifications, e.g. job experience, education, etc. Anything constructive you'd like to contribute on that question?

Why do you think the qualifications were specifically outlined in the Constitution? It would allow anyone who meets these qualifications --no matter their race, gender, religion, or status in life-- a chance at becoming the President of the US. Isn't that what Progressives and Liberals want?

 

[BSM1]

*yawn*
Repeating a bold empty claim doe snot make your bold empty claim true.

So words have no meaning to you?

 

[Sunstone]

One qualification sorely lacking in the current president are superior managerial skills. His are not even barely adequate. They are non-existent. I'd have never hired such a person for a managerial position, myself. That the Electoral College did shows you what a poor judge of competence it is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Obviously.

I have a keen sense of that.

 

[McBell]

Why do you think the qualifications were specifically outlined in the Constitution? It would allow anyone who meets these qualifications --no matter there race, gender, religion, or status in life-- a chance at becoming the President of the US. Isn't that what Progressives and Liberals want?

The minimal requirements for president are outlined in the Constitution because the writers of the Constitution considered them to be the bare minimal requirements.

 

[McBell]

So words have no meaning to you?

You are the one who has revealed a lack of understanding the meanings of word groupings.
In fact, you ran tail tucked from my point blank challenge to diagram the sentence to prove your claim.

 

[Sunstone]

To what degree does job experience matter?

Americans are as dumb to believe that a lack of experience makes someone a superior presidential prospect as they are to believe that being a virgin makes for bliss in bed on your wedding night. Ugh! I'd no sooner vote for an inexperienced presidential candidate than I'd marry a virgin.

 

[Left Coast]

Why do you think the qualifications were specifically outlined in the Constitution? It would allow anyone who meets these qualifications --no matter their race, gender, religion, or status in life-- a chance at becoming the President of the US. Isn't that what Progressives and Liberals want?

Again, we're talking about things above and beyond the minimum legal requirements. IMO, a person's job experience is relevant to whether it's a good idea for them to be President. You disagree?

 

[Shaul]

I think being a veteran of the armed services is one good qualification. It shouldn’t be a requirement, but it helps.

 

[The Hammer]

I think being a veteran of the armed services is one good qualification. It shouldn’t be a requirement, but it helps.

Having served in the military for 10 years, I don't see it as a necessity or necessarily even a beneficial quality for a president to have served. One's service alone isn't some automatic gold star/brownie point (it MAY help one deal with stress, but even I find that dubious at best, based on experience). Some of the worst managers of persons I have ever dealt with were members of the military, and some of the most outrightly vindictive and cruel. Because you can get away with it, and not be removed for it (no being fired from the military for being a **** person).

Edit: I'd like to ask, as I forgot to, initially. Why do you think military service is a good quality/judge of presidential character?

 

[Shaul]

Having served in the military for 10 years, I don't see it as a necessity or necessarily even a beneficial quality for a president to have served. One's service alone isn't some automatic gold star/brownie point (it MAY help one deal with stress, but even I find that dubious at best, based on experience). Some of the worst managers of persons I have ever dealt with were members of the military, and some of the most outrightly vindictive and cruel. Because you can get away with it, and not be removed for it (no being fired from the military for being a **** person).

Edit: I'd like to ask, as I forgot to, initially. Why do you think military service is a good quality/judge of presidential character?

I was thinking along the lines that someone that has actually put their very own life on the line would not lightly put others in harms way.

Also since Commander in Chief is a key part of the office of President having experience in the military would help.

I don’t think the veterans have any more or less virtues than others.

 

[McBell]

I was thinking along the lines that someone that has actually put their very own life on the line would not lightly put others in harms way.

That makes sense.
But the reality is that most who serve do not put their lives on the line.

 

[Shaul]

That makes sense.
But the reality is that most who serve do not put their lives on the line.

Thankfully most don’t find their lives on the line. But serving means they might well do so and possibly bear the ultimate price.

 

[Stevicus]

What qualifications should a candidate for President have?

To what degree does job experience matter?

They should have at least five years experience working at McDonald's or some other fast food place. At least one or two years as janitor. Perhaps a couple of years as a school bus driver in an inner city school district.

They should be able to guzzle a bottle of whiskey or other hard liquor - or at least win a drinking contest. If they're not a drinker, then they'll have to pass a comprehensive battery of tests to prove that they're a true Star Trek fan.

I think that just about covers all the important stuff.

 

[McBell]

Thankfully most don’t find their lives on the line. But serving means they might well do so and possibly bear the ultimate price.

Please do not think that I am disagreeing with the idea that someone who has put their life on the line would most likely not arbitrarily put someone elses life on the line.
I am merely saying that serving in the military does not mean they have put their life on the line.

 

[The Hammer]

I was thinking along the lines that someone that has actually put their very own life on the line would not lightly put others in harms way.

Also since Commander in Chief is a key part of the office of President having experience in the military would help.

I don’t think the veterans have any more or less virtues than others.

I really would hope that to be the case, but I do not share your optimism, it seems.

 

[epronovost]

Why do you think the qualifications were specifically outlined in the Constitution? It would allow anyone who meets these qualifications --no matter their race, gender, religion, or status in life-- a chance at becoming the President of the US. Isn't that what Progressives and Liberals want?

Well technically, the constitution had to ammended several time to allow women, non-white people and non land owners to become POTUS (or hold any office and vote for that matter). The idea is that anybody could become POTUS that doesn't mean that anybody should.

Ideally you would want someone with experience in government, some education in a relevent domain like law for example, in good health, some military or diplomatic experience would be very useful.

 

[sun rise]

The qualifications were established over 200 years ago int Constitution. Any thing else is window dressing or wishful thinking.

So I'd be a perfect POTUS by your definition. I appreciate the endorsement. How would you like to be ambassador to the UK?

 

[sun rise]

No one has mentioned character except in passing. Competence and managerial ability are important. But someone of bad character who is motivated by dark impulses will use their ability to tear us apart rather than bring us together, to promote hatred and fear not to appeal to the "better angels of our nature".