Requirements for becoming President of the United States out of date?

The only thing I would like to see is an age limit. We set a minimum age of 35 I think we need a max age.

I value education but I do not think it should be a requirement for the presidency. I would not oppose something like a standardize test that includes things like knowledge of the constitution, political system, federal laws, economics, finance, military, international knowledge, science etc... I will leave it to the experts to determine what should be in the test. I think a new standardize test should be created every 4 years and everyone running for president needs to take it not just the final two. There will be no pass or fail but all of the test will be made available to the American people to see. If a voter feels a strong grasp of economics is important for you in a candidate you have an option to look at everyone's test score for their understanding of economics. If you feel the test is pointless then ignore it. It is simply additional information the voter can use and it is up to you to determine how you would want to consume it.

 

What upper limit are you thinking?

That sounds reasonable. I wonder if there would be some non-partisan testing sites so it's not "rigged" from either side.

 

My personal opinion is it should be around 60-65 but if people need higher age I could see 70. That would mean the max age for a president would be 74.

I think it would be fairly straight forward to come up with the test. We are not trying to make a super difficult test with gotcha questions. We just want to see the candidates demonstrate a decent level on understanding in a wide range of areas. Demonstrate a good understanding of the constitution. Understand how interest rates and money supply works. Question like this could come from a second year college test. Understanding of the treaties and relationship we have with our allies and other countries. A decent understanding of technology how email mail servers work, computer security and hacking concerns. I basic understanding of major laws. The bottom line is the test score does not matter and people can see the questions asked and how the candidates answered. If you think the question is unfair, simply ignore it in your assessment. It is an extra tool for a voter to see how well the candidate understands the areas that are most important to you. If you want to vote for a candidate that scores zero no one will stop you.

Also it is not necessarily one side vs the other. Everyone running for president needs to take one. So you could use it in primaries determinations too. You could compare Rubio test vs Cruz.

 

No, I don't want people with idiot degrees and I don't want to exclude people too smart for college. Vote for an intelligent person if that's what's your flavor. Maybe we need a little wisdom supported by others who are intelligent? Or maybe someone who has a good common sense and intuition who is good at motivating, encouraging and leading. Or maybe someone who can accurately represent America.

Maybe as much of everything is best.

 

Intellect without intuition, is knowledge without understanding.

 

That seems reasonable.

As an aside, I think the only time that Trump looked nice was when he spoke from Walter Reed Hospital to thank us for wishing him and Mrs. Trump well. He didn't have that gunk on his face and his hair wasn't stuck in the weird shape. I also think it was the only time he wasn't being a straight-up jerk so that helped too.

I only mention it here because I assume he thinks all that makes him look "younger" but it doesn't. I liked his natural look much better. I had a tiny twinge of hope that he would get better (I sincerely wished he would recover) and turn the page on the blame-game and start modeling some of the mitigation efforts to stand behind the experts and CDC. But, once he got home, he climbed the stairs, he was tired but he did well and he waved. He turned, ripped off his mask and went inside when two staff members opened the door and it was back to being obnoxious.

I sometimes wonder if that would have changed the election outcome. He did quite a bit of damage and it didn't help when he stopped doing his job to campaign full-time. It might not have tipped the scales for me but I would have considered voting for him if was humble and said that it's been tough but he wanted to help set things right. I don't know understand why our society cuts down people that admit their mistakes and try to improve their behavior moving forward. I find that a bit dysfunctional. I'd take an honest screw-up over a flashy liar every time.

I didn't explain myself well. Sorry about that.

I was thinking more along the lines that we have X number of candidates that all look about the same relative to party, priorities, plans, etc. on both sides. Elections are usually decided by Independents like me, people that don't align with either "D" or "R" completely but don't have any real options for a very strong third party to knock those two out. That's probably the ONLY thing "R"s and "D"s agree on - NO 3rd parties!

Okay, so let's say Candidate A and Candidate B are about the same (party allegiance, consistency, longevity, public service experience, etc.). Candidate B is a better test-taker and scores higher in (your example) Economics than Candidate A.

The FIRST thing Candidate A's party is going to scream ----> FAKE NEWS! (lol). We would have the same kind of mistrust we have now with the people that believe Biden won by some mysterious, unproven and still unsubstantiated "widespread election fraud". People would be screaming that Candidate A got cheated and Candidate B isn't their President, ad nauseum.

The testing agency and proctors are non-partisan or both parties' are represented among the company owners, proctors and scorers. The questions can be written by experienced leaders in whatever field and a computer populates a random set of questions from each category so the candidates aren't even taking the "same test" with the exact same questions during the same election cycle.

Nobody can bribe their way to a higher score or get somebody else to take their test (fingerprint scan or retina reader). Just cut off all that drama from the beginning.

I like your idea! You need to develop that and get it heard by the right people!!!

 

Hey, MJ.
You've put me in a spot.
Either I had to ignore your post,
or tell you that it has no clear point, I could find.
Maybe you were dancing around not disagreeing with me? Numerous parts, though, sound like you are agreeing with my perspective.
If I combined those ideas, I could take a wild guess, & ask if maybe you agree in general principle with my argument, but weren't willing to admit to me that, truthfully, you would actually prefer that our President had a college degree?

The odds are the President nearly always will have one (as I assume has usually been the case, with the possible exception of some of our earlier presidents, with military backgrounds). It would have been an interesting note of color, BTW, had the originator of this thread, Pitbull, done that associated research, & included it in his OP.

I had a couple of pretty simple, connected points. Many people are not that bright, yet they can & do, get college degrees. Not trying to throw any shade, here, but-- harkening back to your comment--

nearly all the players in the NBA have college degrees, and I don't know that I would want any of them as president, or think they would be qualified, simply by having a Bachelor's degree. Yet, our society has come to put a huge amount of stock in those pieces of paper; I would say too much. Not that I have anything against them, by any means. But the schools' results are nowhere near consistent, from one graduate to the next. Each person should still be judged on an individual basis. IOW, I don't think a degree should replace a person's demonstrating competence, both to the special position, in question, as well as just general thinking ability.

But business doesn't have time for that type of evaluation, or does not feel itself competent enough to make that assessment; so, much of it, we just leave to the schools, and accept degrees as vouching for more than they really do.
It's too much trouble to assemble a top staff, one piece at a time, so certain requirements are used to insure that over a group-- the required size being dependent on what is the actual job, as well as the requisite educational "validations"-- the candidates meeting the educational bar will be more qualified, as a group. It is not a guarantee, by any stretch. If it were, why are so many people, not very good at their jobs, and why are so many services and products in our society, so inferior in quality?

But I don't want to turn this into a dissertation, so let's get to the job of President. The exceedingly overwhelming majority of people, even with a Bachelor's degree, are NOT qualified to be President, at least not a good President, in my view. An even greater % of those w/ no college diploma, are unqualified. But because Leader of the Free World
is something for which College, well prepares, NO ONE, it is silly to set this as any kind of bar. Doing so, insures you no certainty of qualified candidates (for there is so much required of a president) but it may potentially disqualify a candidate, some day, who would have made a good President. My examples from Leonardo to Edison to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs PROVE, that a college degree is not absolutely required, to succeed in any field (it is my understanding that there has even been a surgeon, admired for his skill, who was eventually discovered to have never gone to medical school) nor is a Bachelor's degree, a guarantee of success in any field; and, for ensuring that a person is ready to be president, it really seems of negligible value.

Anyone running for that office will be scrutinized from many perspectives: what are his plans; how well does he communicate; what are his past achievements; any special skill sets (as in having run the CIA or been a 3-star General-- not "graduated college"); does he seem to have integrity, can people trust that (he) is sincere & honest; does (he) have good people skills; a wide understanding, & basis for (his) perspective; empathetic; keenly perceptive; insightful; conceptually far-sighted, in vision; steady under pressure; dedicated, deliberate, & determined; deep understanding of world affairs; diplomatic; a good eye for talent; both an effective manager, and a strong leader; understanding of finance, and of law? Note that merely possessing a Bachelor's degree, insures, to any significant degree, NONE of those things.

 

Where can they do that? Not in any profession that requires a degree. Case in point: I have a very good knowledge of writing American English. I not only see poor writing/editing by professionals, regularly, but I have corrected writers.* Yet, without a degree in English, or Journalism (or something), no one is going to allow me to try out for even an entry level copyrighting or editing position.

A somewhat unique experience I had, many years ago, was when I applied for a shipping/receiving clerk position, and the boss talked to candidates, and narrowed it to 2 of us. He then presented us with a test, containing the type of calculations we would have to make, in the position. I nailed it, and outscored the other person, so was offered the job (though I ended up not taking it, because it was clear they were looking for someone to stay for many years, and I was already considering moving-- though it turned out being another 2 1/2 years, before I finally did). But that is the kind of thing that would never happen, today. I would not get to go in & talk to someone, on the spot, who would decide that, even w/out specific Ship/Rec. experience, my Postal experience, combined with my seeming to be sharp, would make them decide that I could handle it. Today, I would have to go online to apply and, if the online form was looking for specific experience that I did not have, there are no "audibles," in on-line form, decisions. My application would be trashed.

* Kind of a funny story. I had just moved to a town in upstate NY. Reading the local paper, I saw that they had erroneously said, "pour over the details," though the expression is, actually, to, "pore over," as in looking closely, examining every little pore of something, not being like water, and (spreading out?-- who knows what the writer had been thinking, but the editor didn't catch it, either). This particular story, I guess, had a contact #, so I left a message for the author, explaining his mistake (to save him from making it in the future). Apparently, this opened up some portal to a new world, for people around the paper, because in the following 3 days, there were 4 or 5 articles in it, all using some form of the expression pored over, poring over, pore over. It was a bizarre, newspaper pore party, but one that that I couldn't help but find gigglingly amusing.



Miscellaneous, P.S.-- I thought of another possible reason for the stream of consciousness feel of the thoughts in your reply, that led you to talking about a shiftless witch, once in your employ, who was studying to be a CNA...Were we doing a little Friday night imbibing, beforehand?

 

Well, nobody is hiring surgeons from a blog page. LOL What I meant was that some people just have a way of "selling" themselves that doesn't come across if they, as you point out, can't even get a foot in the door. The #2 cause of my constant cringing with Trump at the helm was his attitude that he knew how to pick the best people. No, he's not good at that. He's not good at anything other than cheating people and lying about cheating people. That's it.

So, when I mentioned "finding talent" online, I wasn't talking about the whackadoodles that don't know how to hire, manage or lead people. I'm referring to the people like Simon Cowell (co-producer and judge for the "American Idol" and "X Factor" (I can't recall but he makes a ton of money and he dropped out of high school). He can hear just a few notes of someone's voice and instantly knows that he can sell their music. Case in point, Susan Boyle was a middle-aged, frumpy woman with no "It factor" and everybody laughed at her when she walked out. She wasn't cocky but she told him that she wanted to be as big as Ellen Page. Eventually, she got to sing with Page and she is still happily singing, unmarried, no children all because she believed in herself and knocked it out the park in a few notes so Cowell took her under his wing.

"The Pioneer Woman" started with a few pages of a blog. I enjoy cooking and baking and I went to her blog regularly. She wasn't "all fluff." She laid out her recipes well, made good looking videos of the steps and people found it interesting because she didn't come off like a "know it all" and she explained things in an easy-to-understand way for beginners but not so boring that seasoned cooks wanted to fast forward through it. She has since had her own show and cooking line. I thinks she even does guest judge spots on other cooking shows. This was just a woman at home cooking for her family and sharing it with a few hundred people.

The same thing happened with Perez ("TMZ") and "Snopes". I was reading Snopes back when it was just starting. Then, one day, a friend told me about a show (I can't think of the name of it) and one of the owners of Snopes was actually interviewed during the program. I was surprised to see that and I would have missed it because I don't watch television much at all (mostly just for movies).

And, of course, there is the ugly side as well. I don't believe that a person should be able to become rich and famous from doing nothing but releasing their own sex tape. Prior to that, the only people that knew the Kardashian name were people involved in the OJ Simpson trial. Kardashian's wife eventually married (now) Caitlyn Jenner and the whole crazy clan makes a ton of money doing nothing but having babies with professional athletes and very rich music artists. My issue with this is we are saying one thing but we're promoting (and ultimately financing this kind of "stardom"). This is the same issue I've expressed about Trump. He shouldn't be above the law. Nobody should be above the law and when we, as a society, put these people on pedestals, we are essentially telling the kids those people influence the **only** way to have all that bling is to go against every single moral and ethical thing we've ever taught you. When we don't live by our convictions, we are silently culpable for creating these societal monsters that don't care about putting all their sordid drama on display to get paid. Is that what we really want for our children? I don't want that for my children. I don't want that for anybody's children.

I agree that technology has been a blessing and a curse.

Yes, there was a time when all one had to do was put on a halfway decent looking shirt and tie, smile, shake hands and the deal was made on the spot. And, that formula does work well when we're talking about a small or medium-sized operation because there aren't layers of managers and a big HR department, etc. and everybody's got be in it somehow and sign off and all that. But, the reality is we are a very litigious society. Human resource departments are designed to maximize the most qualified candidates for the benefit of the company while minimizing future risks and, unfortunately, in order to do that effectively, there are going to be more "t"s to cross and "i"s to dot.

Obviously, I can't name names but there is a very large corporation with offices around the world. They get a ton of resumes. This was back before the internet expanded and job searches transitioned so candidates were sending in paper resumes. Human resources was drowning in resumes. They got them sorted out by department and literally delivered boxes upon boxes of unfiltered resumes to each department head and told them to deal with it. Dude, this is going to sound made up but I swear it isn't.

The Department head that I worked under didn't want to deal with it either so he told all of us to grab a box and start reading resumes. Yeah, lots of fun. Our supervisor comes by a few days later and wants to know how things are coming along. We each gave our picks to be called for interviews but it wasn't enough. He wanted it to go faster than our eyeballs could search for the required skills and other positives to tell him which candidates to have HR schedule for interviews. We all dutifully got back to work on our stacks as he turned to walk away. Then, all hell broke loose. He took a detour to the empty cubicle with the stacks of unsort resumes and literally threw them into the air. No joke. We are looking around at each other speechless. He shouted "Everybody's resume that landed face up gets an interview. Send rejection letters to the rest!" and went to lunch.

There is an old wives' tale (I think it is) that buttered bread always fall with the buttered side down. I don't know if that applied to those applicants' resumes but I can tell you that the people that got interviews during that time probably could have sent their resume written in crayon or magic marker because nobody even glanced at them using the above method.

Yes, that made me laugh. I'm the same way. I think I get called out as a Grammar Nazi at least once a week around here.

I have one for you. The Regional manager for the property management company where I live is kind of gruff. She's about six feet tall, heavy smoker so she has that "voice". She's not very "polished" but she is very knowledgeable and responsive during emergencies.

For some reason unclear to me, she LOVES to type in all caps, bold lettering, underlines, everything. If it's on the keyboard, she finds a way to add it. Well, the whole point in having text enhancement is so that specific parts are emphasized. That's gone if EVERYTHING is emphasized!!! I think she might own stock in a lumber company because everything warrants a two page announcement. It's hilarious. I just laugh it off and have a shredder right by my entryway. In my head, I'm giving my eyeballs and brain a break from her way-too-often "announcements" and I don't care what she has to say. I just mind my business, pay my rent and let all the craziness stay on the other side of the door.

Well, Ms.-I-love-text-enhancements found a way to drive me bonkers anyway. You're going to think I made this up too. Get this...every single time I have to take my trash to the trash room...there is a sign posted on the door in all caps, bolded, the whole nine...

"PLEASE BE SURE TO MAKE SURE YOU PUT YOUR TRASH BAG COMPLETELY INSIDE THE TRASH SHOOT!!!!!!"

I know it's there. I know that it drives the Grammar Nazi in me crazy every time I see it. I tell myself that I won't look at it when I open the door but I see it EVERY DARN TIME!!! I thought about retyping it and fixing that but there are security cameras AIMED right at the trash room door on every floor just because people were not putting their bags completely inside the trash chutes. Maybe I should look into buying some blinders like they put on horses for races.

 

Well that'll be handy when trying to calm Putin down and stop an invasion.

 

I missed this one. Sorry about that.

Yes, I agree with you that a college degree doesn't instantly mean "whatever". We all know idiots with degrees and we all know some sharp people without them.

I don't really see how it would change the playing field for how we get to one "R" team and one "D" team. Outside that, it's really just a matter of preference for those of us who don't align with either side straight down the line.

 

So what would be on your interview sheet as necessary talent and skills and experience for the job of national leader?

 

Actually, he would do a better job at that than Biden.

 

I say you are wrong. I doubt someone without a college degree will ever become president anyway but it should not be a requirement. I think military experience should be a requirement

 

Both do count. Being highly educated and having been a military leader.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump has nothing of these virtues. And luckily, he isn't President anymore.

 

This also applies vice versa. Intuition without knowledge leads to madness without reason.

 

This isn't necessary since a very old man wouldn't survive the presidential campaign.

 

He went to college.

 

I thought he dropped out.

 

"Highly educated" is not equivalent to "college educated".

 

So the OP talks of college education. And the term high education is subjective at best. You are just trolling trump like always. You can’t even admit that he has a good education for crying out loud. Just because you don’t like someone doesn’t mean he’s not educated or not intelligent

 

He graduated, where did you get that? MSNBC?

 

On checking he left one college and transferred.
My mistake.

 

Of course you do. You're not American. As an American, I want my Presidents nationalistic.

 

I'm talking of education that someone enables to be a real President.
Trump didn't receive such education nor did he ever serve the US military.

Trump is out and dead.

That might be okay if you're a resident of a rogue state like Russia.