0
lawrocket

What Profession Best Prepares a Person to be President

Recommended Posts

I would say mortician. They have to deal with families at the worst possible time while they get them to spend in the tens of thousand of dollars for things they don't need. They spend the rest of their time stiffing people one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Or, what professions should preclude a person from being a President?

For example, Mitt Romney was a partner at Bain Capital. This is apparently a job that disqualifies him from the Presidency in many eyes. Much like "community organizer" is a job that disqualifies a person from being president.

Governor of Massachusetts is also a disqualifier - any state governor should be disqualified (like Palin was) because of the lack of foreign policy experience it provides. (Clinton and Carter are exceptions to this rule, of course).

I am wondering - what profession would somebody think would make the best POTUS?

My opinion? General Officer in the military, I think, would be the one that would most certainly be applicable. First, the General would be in charge of a very large bureaucracy. The General must deal with budgetary issues and long-range planning and short-term issues.

Additionally, nobody makes general without knowing how to politic. They spend time with Congress, with the executive branch. All domestic issues.

They also would be best suited for being Commander-in-Chief. And, quite frankly, they've got to have foreign policy experience and a knowledge of risk and benefit.

It doesn't mean they'll be a good POTUS. However, they will certainly have the background, as well as easy access to any and all records necessary to vet the individual.



Elect Ken Jennings Jeopardy Champion, smartest man in the world second only to Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

An Agnostic successful small business owner husband or wife with a background in world travel with good common sense and military age children.



Having military age children is useless as a desirable Presidential trait if the children, being adults, actually do what they want to do rather than what some voter thinks they are obligated to do. Seriously, who would want their father or mother in their direct chain of command? It definitely has issues with fraternization, which are against da rulz.
_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

An Agnostic successful small business owner husband or wife with a background in world travel with good common sense and military age children.




Well...that would be ME! B|


“The First Thing We Do ~ Let's Kill All the Lawyers”


...the 2nd is tutor the house & senate with economics 101, don't write any checks with no money in the bank! :D

Give ME four years - and I'll zero out the deficit, create jobs, strengthen border security, revamp social security AND get the Cubs into the World Series!!!

Perfect choice, I have a closet FULL of skeletons and the bail receipts to prove it...
so fuckin' what, no prison record.
It just shows I'm as adept at getting out of trouble as fast as I can get in it. >:(

Hell yeah I inhaled, I found it provides a calming effect counteracting all the blow I snorted off strippers titties 'back then'. :$

Mothball the Presidential limo, my Z-4 just got a tune up and new skins.

No need for some big secret service detail followin' me around...
just gonna give some shooting buddies from here in Texas free ammo, some ray-bans & :D

Assassinate ME?? :D...PACK A LUNCH!

Hell I've already been shot twice & stabbed once, I jump out of airplanes at night & light myself on fire for FUN!
Bring it puss-nuts, with this jukebox tuned up MY way ... we can dance ALL NIGHT. B|


Best yet, the first lady would be a hot redhead that's type rated for Air Force One!



Oh and BTW~
My last name is rather hard to spell, please do it correctly when ya write me in! :)

Arn't you of Russian type descent??

Fucking SLEEPER Agent you are:ph34r::ph34r:
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Or, what professions should preclude a person from being a President?

For example, Mitt Romney was a partner at Bain Capital. This is apparently a job that disqualifies him from the Presidency in many eyes. Much like "community organizer" is a job that disqualifies a person from being president.

Governor of Massachusetts is also a disqualifier - any state governor should be disqualified (like Palin was) because of the lack of foreign policy experience it provides. (Clinton and Carter are exceptions to this rule, of course).

I am wondering - what profession would somebody think would make the best POTUS?



you're injecting a bit too much bias into the question, methinks.

You also left off Reagan from the list of state governors. His time was a much more foreign policy heavy administration than any that followed.

No one, well, the non voting Occupiers perhaps, excludes Romney because he was at Bain. But when he, or Meg Whitman, run based on their corporate success, they will be called out for bankrupting companies, or laying off tens of thousands. It doesn't mesh so well with their claims of being economy builders. The Bain record is pretty clear - find a healthy company, have it issue lots of debt, use that money to pay Bain fees, let company fester away. That may be exactly what Congress does now with deficit spending, but it's hardly a step forward for the country.

Perot, having founded and built a massive EDS, did have considerable experience to bring to the table. On the downside, he was mildly crazy and like some generals, he was used to being completely in charge.

We already have seen that intelligence alone isn't enough. Obama has shown his lack of experience. Condi Rice is a example of this on the other side. The Hoover Institute isn't the same as the real world.

Personally I would expect the Senate to provide the strongest pool of candidates, though this hasn't panned out to electoral success for the past half century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A military background will only get a person so far in dealing with the other issues and in fact might give the person the completely wrong set of tools in dealing with certain issues.



I do agree a military type is no good -

1 - Jack Nickolson in A Few Good Men - he was horrible - you want the truth?
2 - That Colonel in Avatar - no way I'd want that guy in charge
3 - Sargeant Hulka - nope
4 - the list is endless

yup - I wouldn't want any movie stereotype of a high ranking military person in charge either

fortunately, most of persons of star rank that I've personally met have been smart, data driven, uniform in treatment, non-biased, practical, direct, results oriented and kind. they were very aware of their responsibilities and recognized that the consequences of any decision affected thousands of people from all walks of life....that would really suck. Let alone the idea of hiring someone that pretty much gives their entire career to serving a country when they would have been able to make a LOT more money with their abilities in the private sector (or even retire at 20-30 years on pension and then join private industry).

Star level military types are pretty much the definition of a successful diplomatic professional.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on exactly what you are asking. The kind of people that used to get elected, and made very good presidents, were first and foremost people of integrity, with a solid vision of the direction we needed to go, and good at judging character (the better to surround themselves with competent people).

The Presidency is not a hands-on job; there are simply too many tasks and way too much detail. Rather what is required is the ability to lead with integrity and see as far out as is reasonably possible.

On the other hand, if you are asking what it takes to get elected today - a strong ability to deceive & manipulate, ability to manage relationships instead of experiencing them, the ability to craft messages rather than speak honestly and openly, the ability to take advantage of the sensationalist claptrap that now defines most journalism, and in general to use all of the above on the huddled gullible masses.

Small wonder the slate of candidates is so pathetic the last few elections; or as Deming said - our processes are perfectly designed for the results they are generating.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Star level military types are pretty much the definition of a successful diplomatic professional.



Your problem, it appears from your post, is you assume I get my opinion watching movies instead of history books talking about events such as the Bay of Pigs.

Generals have, in fact, proven themselves to be somewhat untrustworthy sometimes when it comes to what they consider to be a diplomatic solution.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pretty much in any job, for every couple of creeps, most of the rest are decent people. My real problem, apparently, is actually being stationed in DC for nearly a decade and surrounded by real life top level star ranked people. But, most of them I never did read about in any history book. Just met in real life. guess you got me there.

my real position in lawrocket's question is pretty much I don't care what job they have or had. I care about their character, positions on key topics, and ability to communicate and work and lead. Anything else still infers some sort of pre-conception about the type of people that occupy certain careers. Other than most of the suggestions seem to imply a high level of capability or connections, I don't think any other inference is worthwhile. Wouldn't we rather just vet out each candidate as they come?

the rest of the thread is pretty much people using their stereotypes to vet out occupations. those that do it knowingly and for jest are fun to read - those that do it seriously are just standard Speaker's Corner tripe

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

An Agnostic successful small business owner husband or wife with a background in world travel with good common sense and military age children.




Well...that would be ME! B|


“The First Thing We Do ~ Let's Kill All the Lawyers”


...the 2nd is tutor the house & senate with economics 101, don't write any checks with no money in the bank! :D

Give ME four years - and I'll zero out the deficit, create jobs, strengthen border security, revamp social security AND get the Cubs into the World Series!!!

Perfect choice, I have a closet FULL of skeletons and the bail receipts to prove it...
so fuckin' what, no prison record.
It just shows I'm as adept at getting out of trouble as fast as I can get in it. >:(

Hell yeah I inhaled, I found it provides a calming effect counteracting all the blow I snorted off strippers titties 'back then'. :$

Mothball the Presidential limo, my Z-4 just got a tune up and new skins.

No need for some big secret service detail followin' me around...
just gonna give some shooting buddies from here in Texas free ammo, some ray-bans & :D

Assassinate ME?? :D...PACK A LUNCH!

Hell I've already been shot twice & stabbed once, I jump out of airplanes at night & light myself on fire for FUN!
Bring it puss-nuts, with this jukebox tuned up MY way ... we can dance ALL NIGHT. B|


Best yet, the first lady would be a hot redhead that's type rated for Air Force One!



Oh and BTW~
My last name is rather hard to spell, please do it correctly when ya write me in! :)


Hell, if you're the prez, they could upgrade you to an M roadster, or even a Z8.

The Secret Service would still be necessary, not to protect you, but to protect us from your security detail.

And I can see it now...
"Mr President, did your security detail engage prostitues?"

"Well, yes. But they paid the bill and left the blow alone!"

And I really want to see Air Force One do a barrel roll.


I'd vote for you :P
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Star level military types are pretty much the definition of a successful diplomatic professional.



Your problem, it appears from your post, is you assume I get my opinion watching movies instead of history books talking about events such as the Bay of Pigs.

Generals have, in fact, proven themselves to be somewhat untrustworthy sometimes when it comes to what they consider to be a diplomatic solution.



Yeah. Washington was untrustworty. I think the last one was that Eisenhower jerk. There were other 'untrustworthy' types in there as well. A lifetime of service, leadership, higher education and caring for others are things we should always try to avoid.

For the record, Soldiers aren't the ones who jump to warfare in place of diplomacy. The politicians who get to stay behind and send us forward are the ones who do that. We generally deplore war. We are the ones who get killed and blamed for it by people like you.

Yeah. I took offense at this post.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yeah. I took offense at this post.



Why? Are you a general? Did I mention you by name and say YOU were dragging the country into oblivion?

Look, there is absolutely no denying that there have, in fact, been some horrible generals, not only in the world, but in the US military. A number of famous ones became famous specifically because they were horrible and to deny that some were power hungry asshats who craved war (let alone a lack of diplomacy) is simply being silly.

Custer was a fucking asshole carring far more about glory than his own men. Patton. MacArthur.

I'm not about to walk on eggshells and never say a bad word about "the military" as a concept simply because somebody might take it personally when, in fact, it has absolutely zero to do with them.

Suck it up cupcake.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I care about their character, positions on key topics, and ability to
>communicate and work and lead. Anything else still infers some sort of
>pre-conception about the type of people that occupy certain careers.

I care about all those things as well. Still, when I hire people, I find that their previous jobs are good indicators of how well they will do in a new job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Yeah. I took offense at this post.



Why? Are you a general? Did I mention you by name and say YOU were dragging the country into oblivion?

Look, there is absolutely no denying that there have, in fact, been some horrible generals, not only in the world, but in the US military. A number of famous ones became famous specifically because they were horrible and to deny that some were power hungry asshats who craved war (let alone a lack of diplomacy) is simply being silly.

Custer was a fucking asshole carring far more about glory than his own men. Patton. MacArthur.

I'm not about to walk on eggshells and never say a bad word about "the military" as a concept simply because somebody might take it personally when, in fact, it has absolutely zero to do with them.

Suck it up cupcake.



But by these few, you are saying that in general, most stars don't have the tools to be president:

Quote

The problem is we have a single person position that serves multiple purposes, only one of which is national defense. A military background will only get a person so far in dealing with the other issues and in fact might give the person the completely wrong set of tools in dealing with certain issues. In the military, there is a chain of command and orders issued are to be obeyed, but that is specifically not what works when we're talking about a free country and free individuals.



You read about some bad generals. how many good generals did you read about? In fact, of all the generals that served, how many were bad? This is confirmation bias at it's best.

Here is a list of 4 stars, the lowest amount in rank of generals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_four-star_generals

Are at least half of these generals known to have the issues you describe? What about all the others not listed?
_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I care about their character, positions on key topics, and ability to
>communicate and work and lead. Anything else still infers some sort of
>pre-conception about the type of people that occupy certain careers.

I care about all those things as well. Still, when I hire people, I find that their previous jobs are good indicators of how well they will do in a new job.



sure, but mostly it's their performances in those jobs - not the job description itself that's the real proof

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Here is a list of 4 stars, the lowest amount in rank of generals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_four-star_generals

Are at least half of these generals known to have the issues you describe? What about all the others not listed?



Seems strange that there were relatively few prior to about the mid-40's, and I know of most of them; then there are scads from that point on, and I know of very few of them.

During and after WWII, did becoming a general morph into something that was much easier to do? Kinda like grade inflation in which getting an A used to really mean something, whereas now not getting one pretty much means you didn't really try very hard.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Custer was a fucking asshole carring far more about glory than his own men. Patton. MacArthur.



True. MacArthur was easily vetted by his history of insubordination to three presidents. General Edwin Walker is another example of public guys who have it all there to be vetted. Ned Almond. This is the thing: these guys had a clear record and could easily be vetted. Some of them you can see are presidential material and others aren't.

But here's the thing, Paul - what other profession puts you at the top of a large bureaucracy? Dealing with budgetary issues? Human welfare? Infrastructure? And, yes, even diplomacy? Administration. Policy. Delegation. Hands on. Foreign policy. Domestic policy. Can take orders. Can give orders. Relies on advice of staff.

All of that does not make a person presidential. It's personality that helps that. It does, however, give a person training for the job.

And - a very long record of who a person actually IS versus who the person SAYS he or she is.





That's my point about general officers. They have 30 years of records of EXACTLY the type of personalities and leadership they have. What you point to as a negative I point to as a positive. You've got someone like Colin Powell. Or you've got Wesley Clarke.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not being a lawyer.... no offense.



None, taken. I think I've had enough of them, myself. For crying out loud, our current president is a lawyer and not even Marbury v. Madison or Article 3 of the Constitution are recognizable to him.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Marbury V. Madison



Who?



There was a teacher in my highschool named Marbury. I never knew he got into a dispute with Dolly Madison.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0