not-so-furry discussion > debate forum

Does a President need political experience?

<< < (2/3) > >>


--- Quote from: Holt5 on October 02, 2016, 02:14:46 pm ---Casting aside all the other qualities (and lackings thereof), I think that a president with little or no previous political experience would offer ample opportunity for improvement in both the office and its correspondents. I think what's important in this regard is that the leader is strong and capable of learning the ropes as he goes along. Key word: leader.

The country won't simply crumble (any more than it already is) while he's gaining knowledge and experience - we're built in large part upon autonomy. And allowing other members of office to help with the process may help in balancing powers just as well as it might cause an imbalance. The presidency doesn't need to be extortionately dependent on the president's micromanagement of specific issues, so long as he is capable of overseeing and aiding in the direction of his peers towards basic common goals. As regards mistakes, I can only say that that one requires context to be addressed appropriately. Some mistakes are easier to understand and to forgive than
others. Some mistakes are more severe in consequence than others. Lots of variables.

Political experience is certainly a big plus to have going for you - but I don't think it's everything, nor necessarily a negative to not have it, as long as that lack can be compensated for.

--- End quote ---

This post is pretty much what I think. Might be good to finally get someone who has never been a politician in change and see how it goes. America is a pretty strong country so I doubt he will make the country collapse or get us in any unwanted wars (if we do go to war it's our fault that we will even let our soldiers leave home.)

I don't like Clinton. But I especially don't like Trump even more. But when it comes to experience, I look at it this way: Clinton has a lot of political experience. But she also has her husband and former ex-President Bill Clinton to rely on for extra support and experience if needed. IMO, that's 2x more experience than what Trump's got. Now maybe some of that "experience" that Hillary and Bill have might not quite work out and be good for some things, but having some experience is better than having nothing at all.


--- Quote from: Kobuk on October 02, 2016, 11:35:02 pm ---that's 2x more experience than what Trump's got.
--- End quote ---
Technically way more than 2x. But I get what you mean.


--- Quote from: Kobuk on October 02, 2016, 04:17:14 pm ---
--- Quote ---Does a President need political experience?
--- End quote ---


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.  :P 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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Old Rabbit:
The biggest fear I have is we are likely to have four more years of a do
nothing legislature. Seems ever since 2010 and the start of the Tea party
it's their way or no way.

Government is about comprimise. Many times we have to agree to disagree.
That's why we need someone with experience working with others in government.
Not a pawn of a party either, but someone who has beliefs and stands up for them.
Not trying to get elected promising people things they know are not going to

That's one reason I liked Ronald Reagan. You might not have agreed with him,
but he stood firm, and didn't swing with the political wind. He did make our
country stronger, and made a few mistakes.. I wish we had another like him.
Trump is not anything like him. Reagan was for our country. Lying Trump is
for Trump. I wish the GOP had a good respectable canidate I could vote for.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version