Does a President need political experience?
Tell me, Holt, How exactly does the experience in building, owning, and operating hotels, golf courses, restaurants, and casinos qualify a person to become President? IMO, it doesn't. Those are the only things that Trump knows how to do. How does any of that help deal with the Syrian Civil War, ISIS, Immigration & Refugees, World Hunger, Climate change, Overpopulation, Gun Control, Racism, and so much more?
To help mediate and solve not just our own problems, but those of the world, a person needs knowledge and experience in those issues to handle them. Trump.........does not.
I'm not suggesting that said qualities constitute any sort of inherent qualification to begin with. What they do require, in retrospect, is a successful leadership. If there's any popular businessman in America that can translate lessons learned from those operations to operations in the White House, he's obviously one of the best choices if he's made it far enough to grab a top-3 spot in the polls - he's someone that a substantial amount of people are capable of rallying around. It's just a shame that we didn't have better businessmen and politicians running than what we've allowed to queue up - but I'd guess that's every election immemorial.
As concerns the issues of war, immigration, and the proceeding bullet points, that's what a president's cabinet is for. You'll never see any of those issues remotely resolved from a political standpoint if you're expecting one person to tackle all of them alone within a 4-year term. Micromanagement is all of our enemy in such a configuration, which is why the president should merely preside over his office as an overseer - not meddling in everything his subordinates and peers are trying to accomplish. Just as with the military, a good leader has to let subordinates do their job and let their subordinates do their job, etc. We have a secretary of defense - he's supposed to oversee our defense. We have secretaries of various other tasks that our country needs done from a leadership perspective. If they're worth the money that gets hashed out to them in whopping salaries, don't you agree that we should be willing to let them earn what they receive, to everyone's benefit?
The other thing is - this is the American president we're talking about: not a world president. I don't think global initiatives should be a priority until we're on good ground to provide those initiatives. Which isn't to say we can't provide assistance and knowledge according to reasonable circumstances. But if we're trying to aid other countries at our own expense while we are still trying to solve similar issues on our own ground, we're being overly involved in foreign affairs. "Remove the plank from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in another's." Once we remove our set of planks, once we get our
house in order we can then help remove as many splinters around the world as we want, because we then have a de-facto
point of reference to show the rightful merits of our system, and by proxy its genuine nature, to other nations. That can't happen while we're both inconclusive and impatient with our political adversaries.
Which is why I'm going with Gary Johnson personally, because he offers a steep but conclusive compromise between both parties - and I think that's why they dislike him, because he would compromise a respectable portion of both of their values. The other two candidates' plans won't work unless it's all or nothing for their parties. I think it's time to get out of that dichotomous muck if possible this election year.