I have long been a proponent of minimum IQ scores for public service. It's a great way to keep the MTG's and AOC's out of the way for sure. Maybe it's time to update those qualifications.
The Decline of the American Media III
- Thread starter CrimsonJazz
- Start date
I think the lack of public service experience was something that drew people towards Trump. Polling shows the country has lost faith and trust in the government and politicians of all stripes. You can see this with the support Perot got way back in '92 and it has only gotten worse. Starting with the Vietnam War and moving forward the citizens have come to trust government and elected leaders less and less. People don't even trust the party they vote for regularly. I think we will see more non politicians run for president and do quite well if not win over the next 50 years. What some call qualified is actually becoming disqualifying for many voters.
I am also a firm believer that stupidity should be taken into account in sentencings.
The more stupid the criminal act, tack on another 10-15 years for good measure. Keep them out of the gene pool.
You're seeing this same thing in churches with full-time pastors. There are more and more congregations wanting bi-vocational pastors because they think full-time pastors ultimately lose touch with their congregation, who have to go out to live and work every day in the secular world. They want someone who can relate to them, and bi-vocational pastors are better suited to do that than a full-time pastor.
I think politicians have fallen into the same boat in the eyes of the average citizen. Most of them can no longer relate to the average Joe, live a lifestyle that 80-90% of the people they represent don't and can't live. Then they look at some of the things they've done while in office that went against the wishes of the people who put them in office, and it is easy to see how putting someone with zero political experience gets a chance.
I think you are on to something there. You are correct about a move to bi-vocational pastors. A big part of it is also a lack of ability for smaller churches to be able to pay a full time pastor and a lack of candidates. The average age of a pastor in the US is now 60.
I've been causally listening to the dumb "drown the government in a bathtub" group for a long time. I hypothesize that we have more of a constant degradation of our government problem than an actual problem with our government. Now, I don't for one second say our government at all levels is competent and efficient, but when large parts of a narrative media for decades are baselessly attacking all the parts of our government that actually work and are efficient and pile those folks in with the George Santos, Menendez, and Householder/Borges folks, well, then we are all subject to a bit too much agitprop.
Turn the question around: what specifically makes her qualified? Not the "constitutional requirement" that some felons in (or out like, say Donald Trump) can meet but that abstract concept where they've done SOMETHING that has prepared them for a leadership role. And a very basic requirement to be an actual leader is the ability to communicate. No, you don't have to be Reagan or Obama - but it's a basic requirement. Biden was (barely) able to do this in 2020 (and may not have pulled it off had he not lucked into staying out of the public light from the pandemic).
Now go look at her constant bloviating word salads to basic questions and tell me she even meets that basic requirement. Except for that first debate where did the easiest thing a black candidate can ever do - basically insinuate a white opponent is a shameless racist - she sounded so incoherent that Sarah Palin was Socrates by comparison and that's pretty bad. Almost every single one of her extemporaneous utterances made Palin in the chair next to Katie Couric sound like a smart lady.
And other than abortion - about which she was coherent enough to speculate she's probably had more than one - she couldn't spell out anything. Not as VP, not as a not-ready-for-prime-time player.
I don't see marking time in public offices as an automatic credential, though. Is being Attorney General of California even remotely like being AG in a more NORMAL state that doesn't have some of the wild ideas that have marred their politics since Hiram Johnson infected the place a century ago with his emphasis on stupid ideas?
OK, she was a Senator. For three years. Who never even chaired a committee. But George Floyd gets killed and throwing a bone to his base, Biden picks her to be #2. And I'll be honest, I had some high hopes for her, that she would actually learn to do the job. But every time I saw her under not even harsh pressure from the press, she folded like a yard sale lawn chair. Much like Hillary Clinton, she'd laugh to cover up the fact she was either lying or stupid or both on the question.
And for someone who was VP under a guy who was the oldest President ever, she sure didn't seem to know a whole lot about either the administration positions or what the goal actually was. To be charitable - MAYBE, just maybe - this is Biden's fault in that he didn't make sure she was well-informed (as Carter did Mondale and most importantly FDR did Truman). But in the end, the candidate has to answer the bell.
I don't in any sense dispute Trump's across-the-board unqualification in the first place. Here's the thing: if Trump had had the resume of, say, H. Ross Perot (military officer, successful businessman, highly engaged in veterans issues for years and - as Chuck Colson revealed in 1992 - very politically able to push the buttons in DC from the outside) but without the CTE brain of Jesse Ventura's logic on conspiracies, PEROT might have been the rare outsider to qualify (he wasn't qualified, either).
Trump added the level of disqualified with what he pulled in both the near and far aftermath to the 2020 election.
Every time I hear anyone use the phrase "Donald Trump is a successful businessman," I immediately make the point he's a clown living on credit with six bankruptcies. And the knee jerk reply is always, "But bankruptcy can be a smart business strategy."
Ok, let's buy that cockamamie logic for just a second. I'm willing to concede that a number of highly successful people have had a bankruptcy, including Walt Disney, Vince McMahon Jr, Burt Reynolds, George Foreman, and P.T. Barnum.
But how many people can you name that were business successes who had SIX? Or even "four" if you spot Trump the three-in-one claim on 3 of his?
I disagree FDR kept Truman in the loop. They only met twice after the election. Truman didn’t know the atomic bomb existed until FDR died. The only reason Truman was picked to be VP was because the Democrats didn’t want the USSR loving VP Henry Wallace to get a second term and dumped him because they knew FDR wasn’t going to live another four years. If John Nance Garner stayed in his lane a been more of a yes man and not tried to get the nomination in 1940 (when he was 71) he might have become president in 1945 when he was 76. He actually lived until 1967. The last phone call JFK made was to wish him a happy 95th birthday.
I had a high school friend tell me on Facebook that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified presidential candidate ever. Let’s look at her qualifications.
She was a long time adviser to President Clinton. Of course, she only got that “job” because she was married to him. But I agree she was a big part of his administration.
That said, lots of people have been longtime advisers to a president. Did she think James Baker should have been president as the most qualified, even if he had been a liberal? Then she had eight years in the Senate and a term as Secretary of State. A nice resume, but nothing that put her head and shoulders above anyone else.
Compare these political backgrounds:
Person A
Ten years in the House
Ten years in the Senate
Four years as Secretary of State (sound familiar?)
Ambassador to the UK
Ambassador to Russia
Person B
Eight years in state legislature
Two years in the House
Lost a Senate race
So who would she have picked between these two as most qualified? The first person is James Buchanan, the other is Abraham Lincoln.
I had a high school friend tell me on Facebook that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified presidential candidate ever. Let’s look at her qualifications.
She was a long time adviser to President Clinton. Of course, she only got that “job” because she was married to him. But I agree she was a big part of his administration.
That said, lots of people have been longtime advisers to a president. Did she think James Baker should have been president as the most qualified, even if he had been a liberal? Then she had eight years in the Senate and a term as Secretary of State. A nice resume, but nothing that put her head and shoulders above anyone else.
Compare these political backgrounds:
Person A
Ten years in the House
Ten years in the Senate
Four years as Secretary of State (sound familiar?)
Ambassador to the UK
Ambassador to Russia
Person B
Eight years in state legislature
Two years in the House
Lost a Senate race
So who would she have picked between these two as most qualified? The first person is James Buchanan, the other is Abraham Lincoln.
I stand corrected. (Note: I know I've heard somewhere repeatedly that FDR brought Truman in the loop and kept him informed of the bomb, but apparently anecdotal so thank you).
Here's what nobody ever actually wanted to have the courage and come out and say: "She's qualified because she was married to the President." Because in 2000 THAT was her sole qualification (using that word loosely) to be a Senator from New York. I always thought she was a terrible representation of feminism and "woman power making it on her own." She got where she was IN POLITICS because of her bedmate, and an actual feminist would have left after the public humiliation she endured. Instead, her lust for power matched his lust for sex, and I make no apologies for stating the obvious both then and now. (I don't even mind the "she stuck with him" argument - just don't pretend she's a strong, independent feminist who can make it on her own because she never was).
When she ran in 2008, she was only "qualified" in the sense that her resume was a tiny bit longer than Obama's. Again - I don't consider "was married to the President" to be a qualification and the people who argue this without coming out and saying what they mean NEVER applied that argument to BARBARA BUSH, who not only married one but gave birth to one. Now - by 2016, I can't say with a straight face she didn't possess knowledge of the world or have the "paper qualifications" to run. She did, and Trump didn't.
At the same time, I've never understood people who think she would really have managed the pandemic substantially better than Trump did. She got put into hiding after her embarrassing lack of political skills with Hillarycare in 1993 (that was a major contributor in Dems losing the House for the first time since Ike). She "didn't know" Bill ran around until the revelation in his speech and then Andrea Mitchell told us "she knew from day one." Uh, those can't both be true, media. And while I will even agree that Republicans overkilled on Benghazi, it doesn't change the fact she was part of the "let's lie about this You Tube video" team or her whiny "it doesn't make any difference" comment that went viral.
And bear in mind she didn't manage her email account any better. People can talk until they're blue in the face about the media drip drip dripping her on that, but she's the one who "thinks apologizing shows weakness"....which sounds a whole lot to me like what I've heard about the unqualified Circus Peanut in the Oval Office right now.
What about that cognitive score Trump keeps boasting like a little child he aced???
Her comment about saying she was Tammy Wynette was always laughable to me. I get she was quoting a song lyric but Wynette was married five times. She finally got tired of George Jones after six years.
But she stood by her man because she was playing the long game. My respect for her would have grown exponentially had she dumped Bill after he humiliated her. Exponentially probably isn’t the right word because zero raised to any power is still zero.
But she stood by her man because she was playing the long game. My respect for her would have grown exponentially had she dumped Bill after he humiliated her. Exponentially probably isn’t the right word because zero raised to any power is still zero.
Years ago I pointed out Hillary wasn't even the most qualified Democratic woman in 2007 when she launched her campaign but of course that's just because I'm a misogynist. Remember - I said 2007, so anyone going with the "but she was Secretary of State" argument didn't read. Here's a few:
Hillary - at beginning of 2007 had been a Senator for 6 years in a minority party for 4.5 of those years
Barbara Mikulski - had been in House ten years and Senate for 30 years after years as a community instigator (er, organizer)
Dianne Feinstein - had been mayor of San Fran for 10 years and Senator for 15
Barbara Boxer - House for ten years, Senate for 15
Patty Murray - PE teacher, member of Seattle school board, Senator for 15 years
Mary Landrieu - Senator for ten years, LA House for 8, LA treasurer for 8, and came from a political family (her Dad had been mayor of New Orleans and HUD secretary - if we're including relations)
Blanche Lincoln - 4 years in Arkansas House, Senate two years longer than Hillary
Debbie Stabenow - took office same day plus 4 years in the House
Maria Cantwell - six years in WA state House, two years in House, took office in Senate same day - and oh yeah, was a dot com millionaire, not someone with shady cattle futures dealings
I haven't even counted the governors at this point.
I wanna hear someone from the peanut gallery yell out, "Pics or it didn't happen!"
I always like how the narrative is "the right wing buried her because woman blah blah blah" when her first two snide adventures into national politics were the Tammy Wynette crack followed by "I could have stayed home and baked cookies."
The snotty condescension was always there because that's exactly who she always was.
The night Obama won Wisconsin in 2008 and was said to be on the fast track to the nomination, I was falling in the floor laughing and my (now) ex asked what was funny. I said, "Because you just know she's back there in the private room screaming, 'I stick with that cheating so-and-so just so's I can be President and then this NOBODY comes along and TAKES IT!"
She started laughing, too.
But let me give Hillary a compliment here: she's more truthful than some of the media narratives we're covering in the thread (back on topic transition.....)
I concede that she wasn't HIGHLY QUALIFIED, or the most qualified. Nor was she a great leader for far too many of our voters (and those who stupidly give up their right to vote). But she was certainly NOT UNQUALIFIED. You have a lot of reasons why you don't like her style, policies, and leadership, which are fine.
However, to me if a person has never run for office, won, and then enacted some of their positions they campaigned on, then they are simply NOT qualified for President. DJT was NOT qualified to me when he ran the first time, and it showed right away as he was not prepared to lead the country in rhetoric, policy, planning, or substance. He did make up for some of that with policies I consider putrid, but that's the past. The second time he ran, any neutral observer would say he should not have been a free man, but to stay a free man is exactly why he launched his campaign well over 2 years before the actual election. But I digress.
I hear you, but our debt has less to do with efficiency, and a lot to do with plain old refusal to balance the budget politics. We refuse to tax commensurate with our spending. We refuse to spend commensurate with our tax receipts. Both parties are guilty. One more than the other, but it doesn't really matter at this point who's more to blame.
But now let's cut even more taxes, that will certainly finally fix the debt problem and once and for all show that pure fiction Laffer curve to finally be real.
I think it's a fair argument to point out the Republicans won't support tax increases - just like it's fair to point out they DID in 1982 and 1990 and got scorched at the ballot box after agreeing with the Democrats on "tax increases now but spending cuts not for 3-4 years." And in neither case did those spending cuts happen. You cannot expect the GOP to line up and try to kick the football Lucy is holding yet again. The only reason those "spending cuts" in the 1993 budget deal (that triggered in 1995) happened was because the Republicans won both houses of Congress. Clinton had the temerity to race around the country saying, "They're cutting (X that we like)" and NOW HE ALONE claims to get credit for a balanced budget he wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
But you can see it on the posts on this board, too. Over and over, you can always tell a liberal by three things: 1) tax the rich; 2) cut defense spending; 3) if we can't get enough on those two only then will we consider cuts in domestic programs. What's funny is I actually agree with the first two - it's just nobody is going to be the "former representative or Senator" who proposes to cut free money from the government only to have the Democrats pull the old "you're trying to take Grandma's Social Security check" that they've been crying since 1964. Even Obama's "show me your cuts" and "I'm on board for spending cuts in domestic programs" not a one of which he ever proposed was demagoguery.
Of course, right now the entire budget process is the sole property of the MAGA fringe of what used to be the Republican Party, so the libs get a pass right now. I can get on board for across the board spending cuts - but not so wealthy taxes can get cut and the Pentagon gets another $13 TRILLION to run Navy jets off the end of aircraft carriers into the ocean.
And for the record, I blame the voters entirely. You can't throw a hissy fit when Representative X does what YOU wanted to balance the budget and your "Uncle Sam loves me" check gets frozen at the same amount for 3 years. Most of the budget agreements would be compromises - or should be - of "I wanted a 40% cut and he wanted 0% so we met in the middle at 20%."
FTR - I walked into budget cuts at work this am anticipating Trump's budget. They're going to just not hire any more staffing first.
Fortunately, it's not like hospital staffs are overworked the last several years.
I consider the GOP masters at spinning a narrative these days (look at the insanity we have now in the oval office due to the fantastic job from the spin doctors cleaning up), so if they really wanted to focus on balancing the budget, I believe they could easily sell tax increases with spending cuts as a balanced budget that would leave us in reasonable fiscal shape like the Clinton years. But too many of their high value donors call the shots these days due to Citizens United and the like dark money, and we all know large buckets of money are far more important than people these days.
Latest threads
-
-
Coach Wimp Sanderson was asked by the Regions Tradition to not play in their Pro-Am- Started by bamamc1
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: FCS headed for 12-game regular seasons in '26- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Post-spring Way-Too-Early Top 25: Where does Texas and Notre Dame rank?
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
Yahoo: Why this 2026 Illinois tight end is strongly considering Alabama football
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0