I'd like to see someone do a study and see if there's even a little bit of correlation between a President's background and their relative success as President.

 

I would guess there is probably little to no correlation.

 

The Presidency of the United States is inherently unlike any other job in the world. I truthfully don't think any line of work can completely prepare you for what you are facing. As a voter, you can take it into account, but it's so different than even any other political office that to think that someone's previous line of work can prepare or disqualify them from success is, in my opinion, totally unrealistic.

 

So the digs at the "community organizer" are pretty off base, imo.

 

I mean, wouldn't a 2 term congressman, senator, and two term vice president be a good option? Because that was Richard Nixon.

 

If Barack Obama is failing as President, I don't think it has anything to do with his past as a community organizer.

The issue with that is that almost no other prospective candidates ever offer that type of experience. Are we then essentially just dooming ourselves to failing in that regard? Shouldn't he be judged against the people he went up against? In that regards, he's no better or worse than any other candidate he defeated or will likely face coming up.

Presidents do, however, have copious advisers and policy analysts. I'm sure some of the more stubborn Presidents stick to their guns, and I'm sure some merely go along with what their advisers tell them.

I really doubt that a stock broker, for example, would have significantly different and more refined fiscal policy understanding than a community organizer. An economist, on the other hand, certainly might. Having academics in office is always an interesting proposition.

I think that a large majority of what makes a good President is having an excellent set of advisers, combined with knowing when to yield to someone else's opinion, as well as balancing what the American people think they want with what is best for the long-term health of the country.

Can I ask what presidents you feel are good exemplars of what you believe regarding this?

Ross Perot ins '92 was a pretty good example of the CEO scenario in '92, wound up getting close to 20% of the popular vote. I can recall he was actually leading in the polls at one point..

 

 

I agree about Bloomberg being a pretty formidable candidate if he wanted to run.

Ross Perot ins '92 was a pretty good example of the CEO scenario in '92, wound up getting close to 20% of the popular vote. I can recall he was actually leading in the polls at one point..

 

 

I agree about Bloomberg being a pretty formidable candidate if he wanted to run.

 

Good call.

 

I don't know how I left him out. I would certainly describe him as a legit and I think he would have been a pretty solid president too.

 

But he had big ears! Oh, wait....

It takes knowledge and experience to know how to pick the right advisers and to know when to listen to them and when to ignore them. Otherwise the president becomes a lame duck. It's absurd to say that a president can simply compensate for a lack of these attributes by deferring to "experts." That's why George W. Bush was a bad president. He didn't have the knowledge or experience, and too readily yielded to people who had damaging agendas.

 

Obviously the president doesn't need to be an expert in these fields, but that doesn't mean that simply being a community organizer with little relevant experience is potentially damaging to his presidency. And I absolutely think that someone who is a successful stock-broker (able to maintain a job) would know economics better than a community organizer. A stock broker needs to understand market fundamentals, how to adapt to changing policies, and possibly even owns a small firm of his own. Watch some of Peter Schiff's videos when you get a chance. He's "just" a stock-broker in that he has no "academic" training in economics (his education was in finance/accounting, not economics), but articulates coherent fiscal theory after observing market trends and starting his own brokerage firm in a studio apartment. I really don't see how anyone can say that a community organizer inhabits the same planet.

 

So it comes down to the fact that a President won't have a good set of advisers and won't know when to yield to them unless he has a solid foundation of knowledge on his own. Appealing to wishes of the American people is rather extraneous and of course often times it is beneficial to not do what is politically popular.

 

 

I just think that the knowledge and experience gained in a lot of the professions you mentioned is so specialized that it would likely have little value. I could see it being a lot more helpful for a CEO than an engineer who, for example, works on perfecting the composition of a plastic for manufacturing.

 

And even with broader knowledge, the knowledge can also be really biased. For example, someone who worked in finance could be unduly prejudiced for or against the finance "world." Or the knowledge could be "misguided," making more problems than it solves. In the finance world especially, I think that a lot of the success of successful traders, fund managers, and sometimes even CEOs, is due to luck, so I don't put much faith in that.

 

I'm sure there are some brokers without academic training who understand economics. but it's far from a rule. I don't see the reliable connection between running a small business and being a President. You could argue that a small business owner has some experience picking people to trust, but I think even that is going to be heavily biased based on decisions that "worked out," which may well have been luck, and/or the person's background to start with.

 

I tend to prefer something along the lines of a technocracy with a President who has a broad understanding of various academic topics, especially economics, law, and the sciences, as well as a strong grasp on organizational functions (can't think of the "fancy" term for this) and game theory.

Taking your description of engineers as accurate, then that lines up with what I said I'd want in a President, so that one works for me.

 

I wasn't making an argument for or against a particular person, including Obama. But he's not making any important policies that determine the fates of community organizers, so I didn't think it was worth mentioning :lol

 

The small business owner example illustrates what I was trying to say in my 2nd paragraph: his decisions about what policies are good are highly likely to be based off of either what worked for him - which could being significantly based on small-scale variance; or, on what larger policy choices benefited small businesses - not because he is necessarily consciously favoring small business owners, but because he has seen those policies "work" - yet, what is good for small businesses, or even engineers or stock brokers, might not be good for the country. The same can be said for lawyers, although I suspect many lawyers work across several areas of laws, but I know many are highly specialized, as well.

 

My thesis is that the transferability of the skills/knowledge/experience of many of those professionals is often questionable, in that their view is almost as easily harmfully biased/restricted that I am hesitant to add much credence to a Presidential candidate based on occupation alone without further knowledge, such as that a particular engineer/other person also has knowledge of management, organizational economics, economics, foreign affairs, etc.

I will add that having someone "biased" toward small business owners could be more beneficial than having someone "biased" toward other things (I think this is something your last paragraph would imply/agree with).

 

But I'd still prefer a broad-based academic type.

I’m suggesting that if we are going to be selecting political candidates based upon a more narrow set of credentials, we should be giving a longer look at the people like Gary Johnson, Perot, or Bloomberg instead of people like Obama.

 

we don't like short people.

I’m suggesting that if we are going to be selecting political candidates based upon a more narrow set of credentials, we should be giving a longer look at the people like Gary Johnson, Perot, or Bloomberg instead of people like Obama.

 

we don't like short people.

 

Well we had a guy in a wheelchair. I'm sure that has to count for something.

Now he wants to see Obama's college transcripts. At least I'm interested in seeing this.

It'd be interesting to see which prospective 2012 and 2016 nominees will back that. One would assume they'd have to be willing to be held to the same scrutiny.

 

Is there any reason to really doubt Obama scholarly achievements beyond that he's Barrack Obama and certain people will doubt anything about him?

It'd be interesting to see which prospective 2012 and 2016 nominees will back that. One would assume they'd have to be willing to be held to the same scrutiny.

 

Is there any reason to really doubt Obama scholarly achievements beyond that he's Barrack Obama and certain people will doubt anything about him?

 

 

I just don't understand what's the big deal of keeping everything so private, besides the political ploy to enrage an extremely vocal minority and marginalize the entire opposition.

As long as all candidates are willing to be held to the same standard, I don't care whether he releases his transcripts. Is anyone asking to see Mike Huckabee's college transcripts? Did anyone ask to see Howard Dean's in 2004? Will it be OK to ask for Sarah Palin's transcripts?

 

I don't see why a person's college transcripts really matter 30 years after the fact, though. What is to be gained or proven here?

 

I don't see how not releasing his college transcripts is a political ploy to marginalize the opposition. That seems like a bit of a stretch.

As long as all candidates are willing to be held to the same standard, I don't care whether he releases his transcripts. Is anyone asking to see Mike Huckabee's college transcripts? Did anyone ask to see Howard Dean's in 2004? Will it be OK to ask for Sarah Palin's transcripts?

 

I don't see why a person's college transcripts really matter 30 years after the fact, though. What is to be gained or proven here?

 

I don't see how not releasing his college transcripts is a political ploy to marginalize the opposition. That seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

 

 

We've known various politicians SAT scores and college transcripts (the most recent ones of which have been leaked, I might add) so I don't see why his can't be looked at.

 

You don't think holding back on your birth certificate for years, while a vocal few angrily demanded it, isn't a political ploy? Especially if you're going to release it 3 years later? Privacy my ass, lol.

I don't think he should have had to show his birth certificate because a bunch of idiots believe a bunch of crazy sh*t.

I don't think he should have had to show his birth certificate because a bunch of idiots believe a bunch of crazy sh*t.

 

 

 

So why'd he show it all of a sudden?

I don't think he should have had to show his birth certificate because a bunch of idiots believe a bunch of crazy sh*t.

 

 

 

So why'd he show it all of a sudden?

 

To attempt to clear it up once and for all.

 

Which of course, didn't do anything, because these people are going to believe what they want no matter what evidence is present.

 

It's f***ing embarassing that the President of the United States had to release two different legally relevant versions of his birth certificate and publicly discuss the absolutely f***ing absurd and baseless conspiracy theories surrounding him.

 

Not every question deserves an answer. Some questions are so obviously stupid, baseless, and loaded as to not merit a response.

He's probably basing it off the video of Ayers claiming that he wrote it, although it certainly leaves things open to interpretation and ambiguous.

 

I have no clue why Trump is running the type of "campaign" that he is. He has the money and the name recognition to be a Republican candidate that could draw in the independents who are becoming disenchanted with Obama's presidency. Instead of appealing to them, he's dishing out this rhetoric that makes him sound farther "right" than Sean Hannity. It's beginning to seem like to me that the Republicans want Obama to win a second term.

 

I agree.

The Repubs it seems have determined that the 2012-2016 time is not going to be good times for the American economy. Better politics to let Obama take the blame for the sins of the past decades coincidently catching up with us while a Dem is in office. Then they can swoop in in 2016 and take the Presidency, duping the citizens into thinking the mess is ALL on Obama.

I'm pretty sure at this point, the GOP is embarrassed by him. He has literally zero backing by the party.

I don't see anyone among the GOP hopefuls that could be president from a gut perspective other than Romney, who will not get the nomination. As an Obama supporter, I only fear Romney (and maybe Huck).

Jon Huntsman?

I'd be shocked if he could get the nomination.

Huntsman will not get the nomination, but even if he does he's no match for Obama. It's incredibly hard to defeat an incumbent president. You need to be special to be able to achieve that or things need to be going very poorly. An all time great politician like Reagan or Bill Clinton can do it. I only fear Romney, but he won't be getting his party's nomination.