• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Qualifications Should a Presidential Candidate Have?

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
I think maybe there needs to be more generational diversity. We had so many presidents born in the 40s. I think maybe a president ought to be middle aged ... that way he or she will have wisdom but still have his head where the edge of the times occurs
 

BSM1

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

Why, yes...yes you would. If you had enough support, then no one would be able to stop you from being president even though there might be a faction out considering you unqualified. As for the ambassadorship, you might want to re-think that. After watching more than a few hours of BBC I have come to realize that I don't speak English...just sayin'.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
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.


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".

This is the beauty of the Electoral College. If a candidate is so evil that he or she would be an obvious detriment to the country--say a budding Hitler (and not just a candidate you strongly disagree with) then in most states the EC can vote their consciences and not put this person in office.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
This is the beauty of the Electoral College. If a candidate is so evil that he or she would be an obvious detriment to the country--say a budding Hitler (and not just a candidate you strongly disagree with) then in most states the EC can vote their consciences and not put this person in office.

Not really no. Many States require the EC to vote for the candidate chosen by the popular vote. Note that the same argument could be made in reverse. The EC could vote for a budding Hitler because they think he would be great.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Dogs are excluded because you cannot be a citizen.
I know it's unfair. We've had cheaters, crooks, charlatans,
boors, cads, boobs, & rubes. Why not bowsers & pooches.
We've had canine mayors. It will just take some time and we'll be governors and Senators.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Not really no. Many States require the EC to vote for the candidate chosen by the popular vote. Note that the same argument could be made in reverse. The EC could vote for a budding Hitler because they think he would be great.

Chiafalo v. Washington was decided unanimously and against faithless electors.

In fact, the EC is liked by the right which can't win a popular vote because they don't run candidates that the American people like. It's really an anti-democratic institution.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Why, yes...yes you would. If you had enough support, then no one would be able to stop you from being president even though there might be a faction out considering you unqualified. As for the ambassadorship, you might want to re-think that. After watching more than a few hours of BBC I have come to realize that I don't speak English...just sayin'.

Proper British? Cockney? Or, heaven forbid, "Scottish 'English'?
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Not really no. Many States require the EC to vote for the candidate chosen by the popular vote. Note that the same argument could be made in reverse. The EC could vote for a budding Hitler because they think he would be great.

Granted, and I said most states.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I always thought the Senate was going to the dogs.
offended-dog.jpg
 
Top