She's not qualified, he's not qualified, who is qualified?

Honesty. #1. Lover of the Constitution as a static, not living document. A commitment to freedom and individual responsibility. Willing to say "no" to wars against countries and enemies who do not pose a clear and present danger to the US. Committed to enacting a clear, simple and understandable tax system. A commitment to spending no more than what taxes are collected, and begin to pay down the debt. A commitment to eliminate regulations stifling the creation of alternative energy sources. Release the Tesla papers. Legalize drugs. End the stupid war on drugs. Promote industrial hemp and bamboo. End all forms of corporate welfare. End the FED. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. Appoint judges and justices who are committed to originalist interpretation. Reduce the cabinet to only the Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury. Disburse all remains departments and agencies to the states, or to the people. After the selection of Senators is returned to state legislatures, increase the number of representatives in the House to 1500, distributed proportionally. Leave all interactions among people alone, except in the case where a person(s) life, liberty or property is in danger from another through force or fraud.


And on his/her second day . . . Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Not too bad but those are either policy positions or actions, they are not qualifications.

It's what I want in a President. Ergo, they are qualification.

Qualifications for President are as follows. Must be a Natural Born citizen, At least 35 years old and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years. George H. Bush had those basic qualifications as any of our past presidents. So he certainly wasn't the last president who was qualified as you had put it. I never insinuated he wasn't qualified in the basic sense.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Come now, don't pretend you didn't comprehend the question. I meant the question seriously and you are not usually one of the Wackos on here so I was seriously asking what you think a candidate SHOULD have in the way of experience.

This entire thread--minus the gratuitous insults--is about qualifications over and above the minimum legal requirements.

I agree with Old T that the old man, GHW Bush, had the best resume of anyone seeking the office in a long time.

Although his presidency was sort of a mixed bag, I think he was a damned sight better than either his son or the guy in office now. (Of course, those are very low bars.)

Another qualification. They can't be members of the Republican or Democrat parties.

Another qualification. They can't be members of the Republican or Democrat parties. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The nation has never been more ready for a non-D, non-R candidate, I believe. Much more so than in 1992, when Perot, even as quirky and nutty as he was, was polling huge numbers in June and looked like a real threat to the mainstream guys.

Bloomberg sure as hell ain't it, and it's probably way too late for 2016, but next time around...hey, who knows?

A 3rd party cannot just show up a few months out from the election and be anything more than a curiosity. Start now if you want them to be "real" in 2020.

The hard part will be agreeing what they are FOR. Being against the D & R is not likely to be enough to be more that a flash bulb in history. What really is the legacy of the Bull Moose Party? Nothing.

Come now, don't pretend you didn't comprehend the question. I meant the question seriously and you are not usually one of the Wackos on here so I was seriously asking what you think a candidate SHOULD have in the way of experience.

This entire thread--minus the gratuitous insults--is about qualifications over and above the minimum legal requirements. Originally Posted by Old-T

Ok, Being the way the world is in terms of conflicts. I think all presidents should have some degree of military experience, A college degree, and a vast working knowledge of the law and the United states Constitution and be fluent in at least one foreign language.

Jim

I agree with Old T that the old man, GHW Bush, had the best resume of anyone seeking the office in a long time.

Although his presidency was sort of a mixed bag, I think he was a damned sight better than either his son or the guy in office now. (Of course, those are very low bars.) Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

Give credit to where it's due. I brought up George H.W. Bush when I opened this thread.
I also don't see why would you disqualify a good candidate because they belonged to a major party anymore than someone would disqualify someone was black, female, or libertarian.

The nation has never been more ready for a non-D, non-R candidate, I believe. Much more so than in 1992, when Perot, even as quirky and nutty as he was, was polling huge numbers in June and looked like a real threat to the mainstream guys.

Bloomberg sure as hell ain't it, and it's probably way too late for 2016, but next time around...hey, who knows? Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

The truth about Perot is that he was trying to prevent Bush from winning. He quit the election over a vague threat to his daughter which he never showed any proof of. When Bush's poll numbers started to rebound, Perot came back in. Perot was all about Perot. He was 100% less serious than Trump.

Like or not, the last third party candidate who mattered was George Wallace.

Ok, Being the way the world is in terms of conflicts. I think all presidents should have some degree of military experience, A college degree, and a vast working knowledge of the law and the United states Constitution and be fluent in at least one foreign language.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Thank you.

The truth about Perot is that he was trying to prevent Bush from winning. He quit the election over a vague threat to his daughter which he never showed any proof of. When Bush's poll numbers started to rebound, Perot came back in. Perot was all about Perot. He was 100% less serious than Trump.

Like or not, the last third party candidate who mattered was George Wallace. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Are you kidding?

Perot was flaky and erratic, and may have been "all about Perot," to be sure, but does anybody seriously believe that Trump is not "all about Trump" to at least as great an extent, or that just about ANYONE isn't "more serious" than Trump? Just look at all the preposterous bullshit that he spouts all the time. But it doesn't matter; he's about the closest thing imaginable to a certain loser in the general election.

Trump has got to be the political world's biggest narcissist, even bigger than the one now occupying the White House (if that's even possible).

Are you kidding?

Perot was flaky and erratic, and may have been "all about Perot," to be sure, but does anybody seriously believe that Trump is not "all about Trump" to at least as great an extent, or that just about ANYONE isn't "more serious" than Trump? Just look at all the preposterous bullshit that he spouts all the time. But it doesn't matter; he's about the closest thing imaginable to a certain loser in the general election.

Trump has got to be the political world's biggest narcissist, even bigger than the one now occupying the White House (if that's even possible). Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

All the candidates are like Trump. For any of us to have a stout belief in any one of them makes us nothing but chumps, lol.

Jim

All the candidates are like Trump. For any of us to have a stout belief in any one of them makes us nothing but chumps, lol.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You got that right!

I hardly see how anyone could vote for any of these people without feeling guilty or foolish, and equally difficult to understand how anybody could support any of the two major party's candidates with fervor.

So, I imagine it will be, for most people, all about voting for whomever you perceive as the less bad of two wholly unsuitable choices, according to what your ideological bent may be.

Or just say "fuck you" to the two major parties and vote for the Libertarian. Especially if you vote in a state that's not in play.

You got that right!

I hardly see how anyone could vote for any of these people without feeling guilty or foolish, and equally difficult to understand how anybody could support any of the two major party's candidates with fervor.

So, I imagine it will be, for most people, all about voting for whomever you perceive as the less bad of two wholly unsuitable choices, according to what your ideological bent may be.

Or just say "fuck you" to the two major parties and vote for the Libertarian. Especially if you vote in a state that's not in play. Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

Yep, the three candidates with a real shot at their parties nomination have negative polling above 50%. That's a record. In a country with over 350 million people, is this the best we can come up with? Fucking amazing.