Qualified to be President?

[Mercatus]

Some things is see to be fit for president.

1. Must like seals

2. Is a seal

Imma go dig up Chris Kyle.

[The Andorian System]

Abraham Lincoln regularly ranks among the best POTUS but is supposedly in the F tier from having little to no formal education. He probably had to of had some if he managed to become a lawyer however, whilst Woodrow Wilson was the most educated and credentialed from having a PhD, an MA, and an AB from no less than 4 colleges/universities but is said to be one of the worst.

There is a reason why the Constitution had few qualifications for a person to become President. The Founding Fathers assumed that the voters would be discerning enough to judge for themselves between candidates.

The Founders probably would have assumed that the people would have the basic horse-sense to avoid voting for a totally inexperienced pathological liar beholden to foreign banking interests just because he said he was rich. There were Trump-like hucksters before The Donald, but voters were smart enough to see through their BS.

Trump was never a successful businessman. He merely played one on TV.

[Kilobugya]

I answered "participation in a debate forum attached to a game made to sell books" because it's the funniest

But more generally, first I don't like presidential systems that give too much power to a single person, I much prefer parliamentarian systems with elements of direct democracy (ballot initiatives, recalls, citizen jury overseeing things, soviet-like systems, ..).

That said, it's a mix of most of your proposals. Yes, all things being equal, it's better for a president to have a higher level of education. Yes, all things being equal, it's better for a president to have worked like a "normal person" for part of their life. Yes, all things being equal it's better for a president to have had some experience managing people and serving at "lower" elected offices. But none of them are the most important things - the most important things are the measures they support, their general ideology and their honesty.

[Eahland]

They must have successfully completed several Dungeons & Dragons campaigns as both a player and DM.

They must not have, at any point, played a Bard.

I'd rather a Bard than a Paladin.

[Narland]

They must have successfully completed several Dungeons & Dragons campaigns as both a player and DM.

They must not have, at any point, played a Bard.

They would Bard from being president. They might lute the treasury, They would need someone who's played a rogue for vice-president to balance out the prose and the cons.

[Ethel mermania]

The person who gets the most electors to vote for them should win.

[Dar Al-Badw]

I think in an ideal world the President would be a Mufti.

The person who gets the most electors to vote for them should win.

Why should it be a popularity contest?

[Kubra]

informally speaking, all candidacies *tend* to involve a necessity of qualification, even if sometimes only within the parties internal patronage networks.
That aside, formalising the necessity of qualifications is a good way of turning public offices into a cursus honorum for the dynastically inclined.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Abraham Lincoln regularly ranks among the best POTUS but is supposedly in the F tier from having little to no formal education. He probably had to of had some if he managed to become a lawyer however, whilst Woodrow Wilson was the most educated and credentialed from having a PhD, an MA, and an AB from no less than 4 colleges/universities but is said to be one of the worst.

There is a reason why the Constitution had few qualifications for a person to become President. The Founding Fathers assumed that the voters would be discerning enough to judge for themselves between candidates.

The Founders probably would have assumed that the people would have the basic horse-sense to avoid voting for a totally inexperienced pathological liar beholden to foreign banking interests just because he said he was rich. There were Trump-like hucksters before The Donald, but voters were smart enough to see through their BS.

Trump was never a successful businessman. He merely played one on TV.

The Founders assumed the Electoral College would weed out any candidates who happened to be foreign-backed, hoplessly unqualified pathological narcissists with authoritarian streaks, the patience of third graders and the morals of toddlers. Having failed in the only task other than giving the most reactionary elements in US society an outsized voice in choosing the nation's Chief Executive, the EC has long outlived any usefulness it may once have had.

Which leads to another qualification for President: winning a plurality of the popular vote in a free, fair and fraudless election, something Republicans have done exactly once in the last eight attempts.

[The Two Jerseys]

The only things that really matter to me are their attitudes on guns, beer, trucks and the like.

Only Hicks and Rednecks should qualify for President. Or just the general backcountry crowd.

I've seen what redneck engineers are capable of building, I would definitely trust those guys running the country.

[Kubra]

The only things that really matter to me are their attitudes on guns, beer, trucks and the like.

Only Hicks and Rednecks should qualify for President. Or just the general backcountry crowd.

I've seen what redneck engineers are capable of building, I would definitely trust those guys running the country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYBiUGVG4u8&t=36s
millions of mosins, senselessly butchered

[Eahland]

There is a reason why the Constitution had few qualifications for a person to become President. The Founding Fathers assumed that the voters would be discerning enough to judge for themselves between candidates.

The Founders probably would have assumed that the people would have the basic horse-sense to avoid voting for a totally inexperienced pathological liar beholden to foreign banking interests just because he said he was rich. There were Trump-like hucksters before The Donald, but voters were smart enough to see through their BS.

Trump was never a successful businessman. He merely played one on TV.

The voters are and did. It's the electoral college that the Founders saddled us with that keeps screwing us.

[The Two Jerseys]

I've seen what redneck engineers are capable of building, I would definitely trust those guys running the country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYBiUGVG4u8&t=36s
millions of mosins, senselessly butchered

On the bright side, under President Bubba the Bradley Fighting Vehicle development program would have cost $69,420.27 and it could be assembled from junkyard parts using an arc welder and Craftsman socket set.

[Kubra]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYBiUGVG4u8&t=36s
millions of mosins, senselessly butchered

On the bright side, under President Bubba the Bradley Fighting Vehicle development program would have cost $69,420.27 and it could be assembled from junkyard parts using an arc welder and Craftsman socket set.

Move over Abrams, introducing the next generation of MBT's

[The Andorian System]

The Founders assumed the Electoral College would weed out any candidates who happened to be foreign-backed, hoplessly unqualified pathological narcissists with authoritarian streaks, the patience of third graders and the morals of toddlers. Having failed in the only task other than giving the most reactionary elements in US society an outsized voice in choosing the nation's Chief Executive, the EC has long outlived any usefulness it may once have had.

Which leads to another qualification for President: winning a plurality of the popular vote in a free, fair and fraudless election, something Republicans have done exactly once in the last eight attempts.

1) In my lifetime, there have been two instances in which the Electoral College overturned the popular vote: Bush v. Gore & Trump v. Clinton. Arguably, the popular vote winner in both of those elections would have made the better President. The Electoral College wasn't supposed to simply reflect the vote of their states, but has done so for most of American history.

2) The Founders had little trust in the common people. That's one reason why they instituted the electoral college. However, in recent history a plurality of voters have made wiser choices than the electoral college mechanism in place. This is true despite the fact that women, minorities & non-property owners (people the founders didn't initially trust with the franchise) vote.

Whether the Electoral College should be reformed or eliminated is an argument to consider, but a plurality of voters have proven wiser than the arcane mechanism of the Electoral College in recent years. "The people" aren't just the toothless, fried-twinkie-eating rubes with MAGA hats and confederate flags on the backs of their trucks. Those who are easily influenced by demagoguery are not the majority. They're a loud, obnoxious minority, but a minority nonetheless.

"The people" may not be smart in the classical sense, but they're smart enough to know what's what & we should trust them more.

[Hispida]

i am the most qualified person to be president. make me president

[Narland]

Thanks for responding. Since you took time to answer at many points, I am happy to offer up a friendly conversation. I think that presidential qualification should be minimal, and am satisfied with it currently.

If I had my drutthers, qualificaitons would be:

A number of these seem silly or bad.

This is meant to be a silly post for lighthearted reflection. Our Framers set the US up for mature and reasonable people to govern themselves, hence the minimalist qualifications for holding Federal office. Their sentiment was that a well informed people of good moral character do not need to shackle themselves with numerous qualifications that hinder one’s choices of their public servants. I think that adding more opens a can of worms. Nobody is going to agree with all my druther’s, just as nobody is going to agree with everyone else’s.

1. Mature adult (45 years of age or more) who no longer lives with parents, and is self-supportive.

What if one's parents live with him?

They could have the upper floors of the White House and he could live in the subterranean chambers.

Seriously though, 35 years of age historically has been considered the end of youth (and hopefully one’s youthful indiscretions) and the beginning of one’s accountability as a mature member of society. Again, I think unnecessary to add more years to it, and living with parents just underscores the absurdity.

2. Who has been steadily employed, or run his/her own business as an entrepreneur or private contractor for at least 10 years

So Ronald Reagan doesn't count. He, for instance, was not steadily employed as he was an actor.

After “Bedtime for Bonzo” he should have been banned from all public appearances for at least a decade, yes? Diana Lynn could have, as child prodigies should be exempt as Prez. And it might be best to ban the monkey and keep it away from shiny red buttons, at least until we can uplift them to some semblance of complete sapience.

Again the real point is that minimalist qualifications are a good fit, while most would not be happy with other’s druthers. I do appreciate your response. If there was a way to indicate tongue-in-cheekery in text, and a wry voice I would type it. When members of a society live disparately and even incompatibly, less is more especially in office qualification.

Being an officer of a corporation, bank trustee, foundation fellow, or lobbyist does not count. Working in the governmental sector does not count. Being an elected official does not count.

These seem silly. When I worked at a firm in finance, anyone at the director level was classified as an officer of the corporation, meaning that if they made it in less than 10 years, you would say their experience doesn't count. However, the founder of the firm somehow counts?

Yes. Yes, they are. (silly). That is the problem with adding restrictions. They do not stop, and the depths of the rabbit hole never ends.

Further, there seem like many cases where I see zero legitimate reason for saying that someone who "works in the governmental sector" should be disqualified. For one, there go a great many doctors (many of whom may spend a majority of their career in a govt owned hospital), economists (who mostly work in academia, federal government, or tech as of recently), and career military officers (poor Ike can't be President anymore).

Quite frankly, I also just don't see why running a private business is in any way a comparable experience to running a country, and see no reason why that ought be a qualification. A country is not a corporation, we shouldn't act like it is one.

I agree re: where a person works. But we are talking about my druthers. Your druthers are going to understandably be different.

Personally, what I want in a Presidential candidate is skilled in dealing with people, issues, and problems, efficiently, effectively, and ethically from a Classical Liberal ontology, and epistemology by duly constituted lawful means, which neither major party has offered as president in my lifetime, although Kennedy and Reagan came closest.

A note of clarification: Technically, yes, a state (European sense) is a corporation (it is corporately made up of people who are treated as an individual entity regarding affairs of other state entities). It just has different means (taxes, guns, martial power, lethal force), and different ends (peace and order for rulers of the state) than an incorporated business (which in the United States is also a creature of the State (American Sense)). The United States is a corporate entity (it’s corporate charter is the Constitution and other Organic Documents) as is every State, many counties, and most towns and cities. Whereas, as a businessman yourself, are already familiar with the means and ends of corporations limited to commercial transactions.

A boring anecdote: I lived for a few years in an unincorporated village, and we (residents) informally paid for the infrastructure out of our own pockets voluntarily. Some of us paid more than others in different things that were felt more important. We all agreed by covenant that the water works, and the school cooperative were must pay (no opting out). When it came to fighting brush fires, everyone was “volunteered.”

Goodbye candidates from military families.

Most military with families are stationed at a base which is a special district of the United States by virtue of its command structure, if not by virtue of its APO/FPO/DPO. I am still undecided about those stationed in Antarctica. Those penguins are up to something.

I fail to see why the Ordinance of 1787 has anything to do with anything today.

[/quote]
Because it is part of the organic law of our Country which is greater than any other laws, decrees, and statutes, other than the Constitution itself. The Declaration, Articles (parts not superseded), Constitution, Ordinance, and Bill of Rights, constitute the basis of written law in the country. They modify all the Constitutions, Charters, Covenants, and basic/Common Law that came before it, and direct and inform the nature scope of decrees, statutes, and judgments which follow. One cannot understand the nature of the U.S. nor faithfully execute the Law as President without knowing them.

But, I would rather hold the People accountable for their moral stupidity in electing a despot, than the converse where the morally astute in constitutional Statecraft are forbade from running by insurmountable "qualifications" that the People are indifferent toward.

[Heloin]

Whoever can deadlift the most weight.

[Ethel mermania]

I think we need to go back to our roots, our Ancient Greek roots and return to Sortion. We pick our next president by lot and at the end of a two year period we the people take a vote, and we either give them a pension and a laurel reef, or we banish them and their family for ever.

[Dar Al-Badw]

I think we need to go back to our roots, our Ancient Greek roots and return to Sortion. We pick our next president by lot and at the end of a two year period we the people take a vote, and we either give them a pension and a laurel reef, or we banish them and their family for ever.

I thought ostracism was temporary in Ancient Greece?

Anyway what if they randomly pick an idiot, a child killer, a rapist, a soyboy, a whore or a thief , for example.

[Postauthoritarian America]

I think we need to go back to our roots, our Ancient Greek roots and return to Sortion. We pick our next president by lot and at the end of a two year period we the people take a vote, and we either give them a pension and a laurel reef, or we banish them and their family for ever.

I'd be in favor of randomocracy. From the evidence of 2016 we could hardly do worse.

[Dar Al-Badw]

I think we need to go back to our roots, our Ancient Greek roots and return to Sortion. We pick our next president by lot and at the end of a two year period we the people take a vote, and we either give them a pension and a laurel reef, or we banish them and their family for ever.

I'd be in favor of randomocracy. From the evidence of 2016 we could hardly do worse.

we could do worse, we could have two people that bad in a row

[Eahland]

So, most of what I actually have to say about this was in the post linked in the OP, but I should probably add the unstated assumption that most of that commentary was based on: That the only job that can really qualify one to be President of the United States is being President of the United States. It's a unique role, and any other job is only a shadow of a part of it.

I'll also add that Trump is uniquely unqualified to be President for a guy who's actually kept the chair warm for a full term, due to his bizarre unwillingness to actually learn what his job was about and how to do it, and his general imperviousness to information. Also the fomenting insurrection against the United States literally disqualifies him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

[Sungoldy-China]

money

a lot of money

[San Lumen]

The qualifications you gave are not things that ought to be required to become president. The qualifications we have are fine as they are.