(04-28-2017 08:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think we need to make a formal application, which every citizen can read, a requirement for running for President. And when a candidate fills it out, they have to do it by themselves with no assistance...

Quote:President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.

"I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17U0CA

Curious about what you think some of the questions should be, and which ones would have tripped Trump up.

Possibilities:
1. Do you think this is an easy job? (yes answer disqualifies)
2. Do you know any Russians, or anybody from another country? (yes answer disqualifies)
3. Do you speak with the gravitas of an erudite person? ( if you have to ask what this means, you are disqualified)

We have a verbal application now, called the primary system. Should we do away with that?

I sincerely hope you were just popping off and not serious.

I actually would have liked to have known what Trump knew about how government was organized and what each branch's powers were. From the debates it was obvious he was ignorant of this, but it was subtle.

Questions like:

What roles do you believe the POTUS plays in a functioning society?
What responsibilities and day to day tasks should the POTUS be responsible for?
How does legislation get passed?

Those are basic questions that tell you about, not only the candidates views on government, but also their fundamental understanding of how our government works.

I don't get why you responded in the way you did to my comment - do you think Trump is qualified?

The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president, which is not good. So hey, why not try and supplement what already exists?

(04-28-2017 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:18 AM)JSA Wrote:  Some posters have stated voters should have to pass the test that new citizens are required to.
Maybe we should require that of candidates.

Or both. Although if a basic knowledge of how our government works was required to vote, and candidates were required to be voters, that should cover both.

Lolz. Funny how the concept of poll tax quizzes is shunned, then, if it comes to candidates, it isnt.

I kind of agree that we already have a hugely informal vetting process --- essentially a year long 'doctoral orals examination' through the primaries and debates that are inherent.

Am I surprised that Trump is largely ignorant of political processes that are typical subjects in civics classes --- god no. The orals told me that in a drastically short time. One had to be largely ignorant to overlook that, or not to realize that.

But the same 'orals' process revealed another candidate who largely seemed to be unable to tell a truth about anything, and had the same combination of 'power' issues, paranoia issues, and 'breaking the law' issues that Nixon seemed be the sole resident of in presidential politics.

I think the primary process did a wonderful job of baring open each candidate's very serious and very major flaws.

I don't think we should require anyone to PASS the tests, but I would not be against require presidential candidates to take the exam and make the results public.

(04-28-2017 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:18 AM)JSA Wrote:  Some posters have stated voters should have to pass the test that new citizens are required to.
Maybe we should require that of candidates.

Or both. Although if a basic knowledge of how our government works was required to vote, and candidates were required to be voters, that should cover both.

Lolz. Funny how the concept of poll tax quizzes is shunned, then, if it comes to candidates, it isnt.

I kind of agree that we already have a hugely informal vetting process --- essentially a year long 'doctoral orals examination' through the primaries and debates that are inherent.

Am I surprised that Trump is largely ignorant of political processes that are typical subjects in civics classes --- god no. The orals told me that in a drastically short time. One had to be largely ignorant to overlook that, or not to realize that.

But the same 'orals' process revealed another candidate who largely seemed to be unable to tell a truth about anything, and had the same combination of 'power' issues, paranoia issues, and 'breaking the law' issues that Nixon seemed be the sole resident of in presidential politics.

I think the primary process did a wonderful job of baring open each candidate's very serious and very major flaws.

I don't think we should require anyone to PASS the tests, but I would not be against require presidential candidates to take the exam and make the results public.

And that is exactly what the year long (actually well more now) primary process does.

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think we need to make a formal application, which every citizen can read, a requirement for running for President. And when a candidate fills it out, they have to do it by themselves with no assistance...

Quote:President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.

"I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17U0CA

Curious about what you think some of the questions should be, and which ones would have tripped Trump up.

Possibilities:
1. Do you think this is an easy job? (yes answer disqualifies)
2. Do you know any Russians, or anybody from another country? (yes answer disqualifies)
3. Do you speak with the gravitas of an erudite person? ( if you have to ask what this means, you are disqualified)

We have a verbal application now, called the primary system. Should we do away with that?

I sincerely hope you were just popping off and not serious.

I actually would have liked to have known what Trump knew about how government was organized and what each branch's powers were. From the debates it was obvious he was ignorant of this, but it was subtle.

Questions like:

What roles do you believe the POTUS plays in a functioning society?
What responsibilities and day to day tasks should the POTUS be responsible for?
How does legislation get passed?

Those are basic questions that tell you about, not only the candidates views on government, but also their fundamental understanding of how our government works.

I don't get why you responded in the way you did to my comment - do you think Trump is qualified?

The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president, which is not good. So hey, why not try and supplement what already exists?

They actually did a fine job of it. As they also did a fine job of 'vetting' the Nixonian-like aspects of the Democrat pitted against him.

If you take the stance that the primary system 'failed' in that regard, one can make one can make an equally as valid claim the same issue as to Hillary as to her 'penchant' for prevarication, paranoia, and one can say a studious disregard for 'small matters for small people' (like FOIA and the storage and passage of classified materials).

The primaries made crystal clear as to the shortcomings of Trump. I don't think *anyone* expected a Constitutional scholar coming from the orange-headed one. But considering the job that the last supposed "Constitutional scholar" did with the position, that may not be such a bad thing.

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think we need to make a formal application, which every citizen can read, a requirement for running for President. And when a candidate fills it out, they have to do it by themselves with no assistance...

Quote:President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.

"I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17U0CA

Curious about what you think some of the questions should be, and which ones would have tripped Trump up.

Possibilities:
1. Do you think this is an easy job? (yes answer disqualifies)
2. Do you know any Russians, or anybody from another country? (yes answer disqualifies)
3. Do you speak with the gravitas of an erudite person? ( if you have to ask what this means, you are disqualified)

We have a verbal application now, called the primary system. Should we do away with that?

I sincerely hope you were just popping off and not serious.

I actually would have liked to have known what Trump knew about how government was organized and what each branch's powers were. From the debates it was obvious he was ignorant of this, but it was subtle.

Questions like:

What roles do you believe the POTUS plays in a functioning society?
What responsibilities and day to day tasks should the POTUS be responsible for?
How does legislation get passed?

Those are basic questions that tell you about, not only the candidates views on government, but also their fundamental understanding of how our government works.

I don't get why you responded in the way you did to my comment - do you think Trump is qualified?

The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president, which is not good. So hey, why not try and supplement what already exists?

The first two seem to have no right or wrong answer.
The third I would expect every candidate to be prepped for.

I responded because any candidate would be prepped on how to fill out the questionaire long before he filed it out "himself", and I wondered what answers might disqualify him from running. IOW, more detail on your proposal, if it is a serious one.

Of course Trump is qualified - he meets both the birth and age tests in the constitution. Are there other qualifications not in the Constitution? Or should there be? High School Education?

In the sense that you mean qualified, I still think he is qualified, though not in the traditional sense of a resume of political offices held. Quite often that kind of resume is not a resume of accomplishment, nor an indicator of ability.

I guess Trump underestimated the difficulties - so what? Obama thought he could shut down Gitmo on the first day - apparently he underestimated that difficulty. Why must we insist THIS President be judged differently from THAT President? In any case, both Lincoln and Truman had detractors who felt they were not qualified. I personally felt Hillary was not qualifed. But many people do not share my personal preferences for qualification. For example, I prefer executive experience for my Chief Executives. Many don't.

(04-28-2017 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:18 AM)JSA Wrote:  Some posters have stated voters should have to pass the test that new citizens are required to.
Maybe we should require that of candidates.

Or both. Although if a basic knowledge of how our government works was required to vote, and candidates were required to be voters, that should cover both.

Lolz. Funny how the concept of poll tax quizzes is shunned, then, if it comes to candidates, it isnt.

I kind of agree that we already have a hugely informal vetting process --- essentially a year long 'doctoral orals examination' through the primaries and debates that are inherent.

Am I surprised that Trump is largely ignorant of political processes that are typical subjects in civics classes --- god no. The orals told me that in a drastically short time. One had to be largely ignorant to overlook that, or not to realize that.

But the same 'orals' process revealed another candidate who largely seemed to be unable to tell a truth about anything, and had the same combination of 'power' issues, paranoia issues, and 'breaking the law' issues that Nixon seemed be the sole resident of in presidential politics.

I think the primary process did a wonderful job of baring open each candidate's very serious and very major flaws.

I don't think we should require anyone to PASS the tests, but I would not be against require presidential candidates to take the exam and make the results public.

I assume that the Constitution would have to be amended to make this a "require"-ment. if we are talking about the test candidates for naturalization take, the test is public and so prep for it it easy. maybe you are talking about a pop quiz. who would write that quiz and who would administer it?

I think this "test" thingie is just wishful thinking from the left, exactly like the Wall is wishful thinking from the right, and I think both ideas are silly.

(04-28-2017 11:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:18 AM)JSA Wrote:  Some posters have stated voters should have to pass the test that new citizens are required to.
Maybe we should require that of candidates.

Or both. Although if a basic knowledge of how our government works was required to vote, and candidates were required to be voters, that should cover both.

Lolz. Funny how the concept of poll tax quizzes is shunned, then, if it comes to candidates, it isnt.

I kind of agree that we already have a hugely informal vetting process --- essentially a year long 'doctoral orals examination' through the primaries and debates that are inherent.

Am I surprised that Trump is largely ignorant of political processes that are typical subjects in civics classes --- god no. The orals told me that in a drastically short time. One had to be largely ignorant to overlook that, or not to realize that.

But the same 'orals' process revealed another candidate who largely seemed to be unable to tell a truth about anything, and had the same combination of 'power' issues, paranoia issues, and 'breaking the law' issues that Nixon seemed be the sole resident of in presidential politics.

I think the primary process did a wonderful job of baring open each candidate's very serious and very major flaws.

I don't think we should require anyone to PASS the tests, but I would not be against require presidential candidates to take the exam and make the results public.

And that is exactly what the year long (actually well more now) primary process does.

It mainly does. I'll say that there was never a debate question that specifically asked Trump his views on what the presidency should be, what civics he understood, etc.

The debate questions are pretty specific or at least focus on a policy topic, and I think it allowed a lot of voters to brush off his ignorance as being about specific topics (e.g. the nuclear triad).

I mean, at this point I just never thought that we could elect a president that thought that their current job was going to be easier than being POTUS. I don't think any job will ever qualifier as being easier due to the weight of the decisions and complexity that is innate in governing our country.

I assumed Trump just didn't want to do those things, not that he thought they were easy.

(04-28-2017 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think we need to make a formal application, which every citizen can read, a requirement for running for President. And when a candidate fills it out, they have to do it by themselves with no assistance...

Quote:President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.

"I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17U0CA

Curious about what you think some of the questions should be, and which ones would have tripped Trump up.

Possibilities:
1. Do you think this is an easy job? (yes answer disqualifies)
2. Do you know any Russians, or anybody from another country? (yes answer disqualifies)
3. Do you speak with the gravitas of an erudite person? ( if you have to ask what this means, you are disqualified)

We have a verbal application now, called the primary system. Should we do away with that?

I sincerely hope you were just popping off and not serious.

I actually would have liked to have known what Trump knew about how government was organized and what each branch's powers were. From the debates it was obvious he was ignorant of this, but it was subtle.

Questions like:

What roles do you believe the POTUS plays in a functioning society?
What responsibilities and day to day tasks should the POTUS be responsible for?
How does legislation get passed?

Those are basic questions that tell you about, not only the candidates views on government, but also their fundamental understanding of how our government works.

I don't get why you responded in the way you did to my comment - do you think Trump is qualified?

The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president, which is not good. So hey, why not try and supplement what already exists?

The first two seem to have no right or wrong answer.
The third I would expect every candidate to be prepped for.

I responded because any candidate would be prepped on how to fill out the questionaire long before he filed it out "himself", and I wondered what answers might disqualify him from running. IOW, more detail on your proposal, if it is a serious one.

Of course Trump is qualified - he meets both the birth and age tests in the constitution. Are there other qualifications not in the Constitution? Or should there be? High School Education?

In the sense that you mean qualified, I still think he is qualified, though not in the traditional sense of a resume of political offices held. Quite often that kind of resume is not a resume of accomplishment, nor an indicator of ability.

I guess Trump underestimated the difficulties - so what? Obama thought he could shut down Gitmo on the first day - apparently he underestimated that difficulty. Why must we insist THIS President be judged differently from THAT President? In any case, both Lincoln and Truman had detractors who felt they were not qualified. I personally felt Hillary was not qualifed. But many people do not share my personal preferences for qualification. For example, I prefer executive experience for my Chief Executives. Many don't.

OO - these questions would not be meant to be right/wrong. They would be meant to provide insight into a candidates understanding of the position they are applying for in a way that we don't generally see during a debate.

And I'm not holding Trump and Obama to different standards. There are always going to be legislative actions that are harder to get done once in office (Gitmo being a perfect example).

But I do not think any of our previous presidents thought that being POTUS was going to be easier than anything they were or could have been doing as an ordinary citizen.

But keep bending over backwards to try and defend the guy I thought you didn't like.

(04-28-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:18 AM)JSA Wrote:  Some posters have stated voters should have to pass the test that new citizens are required to.
Maybe we should require that of candidates.

Or both. Although if a basic knowledge of how our government works was required to vote, and candidates were required to be voters, that should cover both.

Lolz. Funny how the concept of poll tax quizzes is shunned, then, if it comes to candidates, it isnt.

I kind of agree that we already have a hugely informal vetting process --- essentially a year long 'doctoral orals examination' through the primaries and debates that are inherent.

Am I surprised that Trump is largely ignorant of political processes that are typical subjects in civics classes --- god no. The orals told me that in a drastically short time. One had to be largely ignorant to overlook that, or not to realize that.

But the same 'orals' process revealed another candidate who largely seemed to be unable to tell a truth about anything, and had the same combination of 'power' issues, paranoia issues, and 'breaking the law' issues that Nixon seemed be the sole resident of in presidential politics.

I think the primary process did a wonderful job of baring open each candidate's very serious and very major flaws.

I don't think we should require anyone to PASS the tests, but I would not be against require presidential candidates to take the exam and make the results public.

I assume that the Constitution would have to be amended to make this a "require"-ment. if we are talking about the test candidates for naturalization take, the test is public and so prep for it it easy. maybe you are talking about a pop quiz. who would write that quiz and who would administer it?

I think this "test" thingie is just wishful thinking from the left, exactly like the Wall is wishful thinking from the right, and I think both ideas are silly.

A wishful thought from the left? When did I start representing an entire group of political voices?

I've never once heard a mainstream, national pundit from the left or the right advocate for this - it was just an idea that popped into my head. In fact, I would be surprised if this is an idea that liberals are more in favor of, since it fits more in line with strict voter ID laws than lax voter ID laws.

And yeah, this is just a silly, back of the cuff comment, and to force candidates to take a test I imagine you would have to amend the Constitution.

Boy, this struck some strange nerve with y'all. Sorry for pointing out the The Cheeto in Chief has no idea what he is doing and really gave no thought to it beforehand. All he cared about was winning the election (as evident by his constant need to bring up the election results >100 days later).

(04-28-2017 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think we need to make a formal application, which every citizen can read, a requirement for running for President. And when a candidate fills it out, they have to do it by themselves with no assistance...


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17U0CA

Curious about what you think some of the questions should be, and which ones would have tripped Trump up.

Possibilities:
1. Do you think this is an easy job? (yes answer disqualifies)
2. Do you know any Russians, or anybody from another country? (yes answer disqualifies)
3. Do you speak with the gravitas of an erudite person? ( if you have to ask what this means, you are disqualified)

We have a verbal application now, called the primary system. Should we do away with that?

I sincerely hope you were just popping off and not serious.

I actually would have liked to have known what Trump knew about how government was organized and what each branch's powers were. From the debates it was obvious he was ignorant of this, but it was subtle.

Questions like:

What roles do you believe the POTUS plays in a functioning society?
What responsibilities and day to day tasks should the POTUS be responsible for?
How does legislation get passed?

Those are basic questions that tell you about, not only the candidates views on government, but also their fundamental understanding of how our government works.

I don't get why you responded in the way you did to my comment - do you think Trump is qualified?

The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president, which is not good. So hey, why not try and supplement what already exists?

The first two seem to have no right or wrong answer.
The third I would expect every candidate to be prepped for.

I responded because any candidate would be prepped on how to fill out the questionaire long before he filed it out "himself", and I wondered what answers might disqualify him from running. IOW, more detail on your proposal, if it is a serious one.

Of course Trump is qualified - he meets both the birth and age tests in the constitution. Are there other qualifications not in the Constitution? Or should there be? High School Education?

In the sense that you mean qualified, I still think he is qualified, though not in the traditional sense of a resume of political offices held. Quite often that kind of resume is not a resume of accomplishment, nor an indicator of ability.

I guess Trump underestimated the difficulties - so what? Obama thought he could shut down Gitmo on the first day - apparently he underestimated that difficulty. Why must we insist THIS President be judged differently from THAT President? In any case, both Lincoln and Truman had detractors who felt they were not qualified. I personally felt Hillary was not qualifed. But many people do not share my personal preferences for qualification. For example, I prefer executive experience for my Chief Executives. Many don't.

OO - these questions would not be meant to be right/wrong. They would be meant to provide insight into a candidates understanding of the position they are applying for in a way that we don't generally see during a debate.

And I'm not holding Trump and Obama to different standards. There are always going to be legislative actions that are harder to get done once in office (Gitmo being a perfect example).

But I do not think any of our previous presidents thought that being POTUS was going to be easier than anything they were or could have been doing as an ordinary citizen.

But keep bending over backwards to try and defend the guy I thought you didn't like.

I must admit, I am liking him more now than when he was a candidate. As for defending him, I guess that means you were attacking him, and I am always for common sense and fairness. You don't have to bend over backwards for fairness. In this case, I said what I thought, which you see as a defense.

As for whether or not any of our former presidents thought POTUS would be easier than what they were doing, we don't know for sure, since Trump is the only one I know who has commented on it publicly, but I would guess most, maybe all, of them did not think it would be easier, since most of them were were Senators or Governors before being POTUS. On the other hand, none of them were managing a multi-billion dollar international empire successfully, so to some extent it is apples and oranges. Is being a Senator easier than managing a giant business enterprise? I think so, but then I have never done either.

I must also admit, I felt that Trump would find running the country to be very different from running his businesses. I guess he is finding that out.

(04-28-2017 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Curious about what you think some of the questions should be, and which ones would have tripped Trump up.

Possibilities:
1. Do you think this is an easy job? (yes answer disqualifies)
2. Do you know any Russians, or anybody from another country? (yes answer disqualifies)
3. Do you speak with the gravitas of an erudite person? ( if you have to ask what this means, you are disqualified)

We have a verbal application now, called the primary system. Should we do away with that?

I sincerely hope you were just popping off and not serious.

I actually would have liked to have known what Trump knew about how government was organized and what each branch's powers were. From the debates it was obvious he was ignorant of this, but it was subtle.

Questions like:

What roles do you believe the POTUS plays in a functioning society?
What responsibilities and day to day tasks should the POTUS be responsible for?
How does legislation get passed?

Those are basic questions that tell you about, not only the candidates views on government, but also their fundamental understanding of how our government works.

I don't get why you responded in the way you did to my comment - do you think Trump is qualified?

The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president, which is not good. So hey, why not try and supplement what already exists?

The first two seem to have no right or wrong answer.
The third I would expect every candidate to be prepped for.

I responded because any candidate would be prepped on how to fill out the questionaire long before he filed it out "himself", and I wondered what answers might disqualify him from running. IOW, more detail on your proposal, if it is a serious one.

Of course Trump is qualified - he meets both the birth and age tests in the constitution. Are there other qualifications not in the Constitution? Or should there be? High School Education?

In the sense that you mean qualified, I still think he is qualified, though not in the traditional sense of a resume of political offices held. Quite often that kind of resume is not a resume of accomplishment, nor an indicator of ability.

I guess Trump underestimated the difficulties - so what? Obama thought he could shut down Gitmo on the first day - apparently he underestimated that difficulty. Why must we insist THIS President be judged differently from THAT President? In any case, both Lincoln and Truman had detractors who felt they were not qualified. I personally felt Hillary was not qualifed. But many people do not share my personal preferences for qualification. For example, I prefer executive experience for my Chief Executives. Many don't.

OO - these questions would not be meant to be right/wrong. They would be meant to provide insight into a candidates understanding of the position they are applying for in a way that we don't generally see during a debate.

And I'm not holding Trump and Obama to different standards. There are always going to be legislative actions that are harder to get done once in office (Gitmo being a perfect example).

But I do not think any of our previous presidents thought that being POTUS was going to be easier than anything they were or could have been doing as an ordinary citizen.

But keep bending over backwards to try and defend the guy I thought you didn't like.

I must admit, I am liking him more now than when he was a candidate. As for defending him, I guess that means you were attacking him, and I am always for common sense and fairness. You don't have to bend over backwards for fairness. In this case, I said what I thought, which you see as a defense.

As for whether or not any of our former presidents thought POTUS would be easier than what they were doing, we don't know for sure, since Trump is the only one I know who has commented on it publicly, but I would guess most, maybe all, of them did not think it would be easier, since most of them were were Senators or Governors before being POTUS. On the other hand, none of them were managing a multi-billion dollar international empire successfully, so to some extent it is apples and oranges. Is being a Senator easier than managing a giant business enterprise? I think so, but then I have never done either.

I must also admit, I felt that Trump would find running the country to be very different from running his businesses. I guess he is finding that out.

Would you mind giving me some insights into the bolded?

Do you like him more in the sense that as a candidate you couldn't stand him, but now as president you find him tolerable? Or do you actually have positive feelings about what he has done, overall, in his first 100 days. I'm genuinely interested in this.

(04-28-2017 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I actually would have liked to have known what Trump knew about how government was organized and what each branch's powers were. From the debates it was obvious he was ignorant of this, but it was subtle.

Questions like:

What roles do you believe the POTUS plays in a functioning society?
What responsibilities and day to day tasks should the POTUS be responsible for?
How does legislation get passed?

Those are basic questions that tell you about, not only the candidates views on government, but also their fundamental understanding of how our government works.

I don't get why you responded in the way you did to my comment - do you think Trump is qualified?

The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president, which is not good. So hey, why not try and supplement what already exists?

The first two seem to have no right or wrong answer.
The third I would expect every candidate to be prepped for.

I responded because any candidate would be prepped on how to fill out the questionaire long before he filed it out "himself", and I wondered what answers might disqualify him from running. IOW, more detail on your proposal, if it is a serious one.

Of course Trump is qualified - he meets both the birth and age tests in the constitution. Are there other qualifications not in the Constitution? Or should there be? High School Education?

In the sense that you mean qualified, I still think he is qualified, though not in the traditional sense of a resume of political offices held. Quite often that kind of resume is not a resume of accomplishment, nor an indicator of ability.

I guess Trump underestimated the difficulties - so what? Obama thought he could shut down Gitmo on the first day - apparently he underestimated that difficulty. Why must we insist THIS President be judged differently from THAT President? In any case, both Lincoln and Truman had detractors who felt they were not qualified. I personally felt Hillary was not qualifed. But many people do not share my personal preferences for qualification. For example, I prefer executive experience for my Chief Executives. Many don't.

OO - these questions would not be meant to be right/wrong. They would be meant to provide insight into a candidates understanding of the position they are applying for in a way that we don't generally see during a debate.

And I'm not holding Trump and Obama to different standards. There are always going to be legislative actions that are harder to get done once in office (Gitmo being a perfect example).

But I do not think any of our previous presidents thought that being POTUS was going to be easier than anything they were or could have been doing as an ordinary citizen.

But keep bending over backwards to try and defend the guy I thought you didn't like.

I must admit, I am liking him more now than when he was a candidate. As for defending him, I guess that means you were attacking him, and I am always for common sense and fairness. You don't have to bend over backwards for fairness. In this case, I said what I thought, which you see as a defense.

As for whether or not any of our former presidents thought POTUS would be easier than what they were doing, we don't know for sure, since Trump is the only one I know who has commented on it publicly, but I would guess most, maybe all, of them did not think it would be easier, since most of them were were Senators or Governors before being POTUS. On the other hand, none of them were managing a multi-billion dollar international empire successfully, so to some extent it is apples and oranges. Is being a Senator easier than managing a giant business enterprise? I think so, but then I have never done either.

I must also admit, I felt that Trump would find running the country to be very different from running his businesses. I guess he is finding that out.

Would you mind giving me some insights into the bolded?

Do you like him more in the sense that as a candidate you couldn't stand him, but now as president you find him tolerable? Or do you actually have positive feelings about what he has done, overall, in his first 100 days. I'm genuinely interested in this.

I like that he is taking a stronger foreign policy stance. I was very unsatisfied with Obama's approach of taking things off the table before the first words are exchanged, tying his own hands. I like that he is trying to do tax reform. I admire he is trying to keep his campaign promises, even though some of the ones he is trying to keep I don't like. I hate the Wall, and like Nafta.

I didn't say I couldn't stand him, but there were things he did and said that I didn't like, and platform planks I didn't like. Other things, I liked.

I have always thought a lot of the so-called negatives about him were far overblown, for example your claim that he is obviously unqualified, or others' claims that he is a Russian pawn, or that he paid no taxes, or...well, on and on and on. So maybe I didn't have as far to go to like him as you do, but so far, despite a couple of missteps, I think he is doing OK, and rapidly getting better at it.

I preferred the unknown of Trump to the known of Hillary, but thought he was doomed to lose, soI cast my vote in symbolic ways. I always thought he had the chance to be either much better than her or much worse, but so far I think the odds of much better have increased. Still could go either way, though.

I do not consider myself a Trump supporter, but when I heard obvious exaggerations or outright lies about him, I will say that I do not agree with those, just as I would "defend" Hillary against similar claims. Tell me Putin is a tyrant, fine. Tell me he eats babies for breakfast, I will disagree. Doesn't make me a Putin supporter.

Edit: Sorry , Lad, but I heading out the door, so you got the quick and dirty, You deserve more detail, and here it is:

Foreign policy: I was tired of Obama's matador approach - excuse me, I'll get out of the way. He got out of the way in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria, he sat on his hands when there was rebellion in Iran, and he publicized the date we would quit in Iraq. I am ready for somebody to stand up against our enemies, and so far he at least has them thinking twice about trying to run over us.

Taxes: We completely need to reform taxes, and to do so in a way that will encourage investment in america. He seems to be on that track.

Immigration: The Travel ban was poorly conceived and poorly implemented, but the fact remains we have to control our borders. He appears to want to do that.

He is taking quick and decisive action on a variety of issues, which tells me he wants to keep his word. I can admire a man who keeps his word.

"How does legislation get passed?"

"How does legislation really get passed?"

Walter Lippmann said FDR was a pleasant man with a nice smile who, without any particular qualifications, wanted
very much to be President.

A lot of people thought the model for the corrupt Senator in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" was based
on Harry Truman.

Harry Truman said, "Poor Ike. He'll sit here and say 'Do this, and do that,' and nothing will happen."

You don't know until someone is in office.

(04-28-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I like that he is taking a stronger foreign policy stance. I was very unsatisfied with Obama's approach of taking things off the table before the first words are exchanged, tying his own hands. I like that he is trying to do tax reform. I admire he is trying to keep his campaign promises, even though some of the ones he is trying to keep I don't like. I hate the Wall, and like Nafta.
I didn't say I couldn't stand him, but there were things he did and said that I didn't like, and platform planks I didn't like. Other things, I liked.
I have always thought a lot of the so-called negatives about him were far overblown, for example your claim that he is obviously unqualified, or others' claims that he is a Russian pawn, or that he paid no taxes, or...well, on and on and on. So maybe I didn't have as far to go to like him as you do, but so far, despite a couple of missteps, I think he is doing OK, and rapidly getting better at it.
I preferred the unknown of Trump to the known of Hillary, but thought he was doomed to lose, soI cast my vote in symbolic ways. I always thought he had the chance to be either much better than her or much worse, but so far I think the odds of much better have increased. Still could go either way, though.
I do not consider myself a Trump supporter, but when I heard obvious exaggerations or outright lies about him, I will say that I do not agree with those, just as I would "defend" Hillary against similar claims. Tell me Putin is a tyrant, fine. Tell me he eats babies for breakfast, I will disagree. Doesn't make me a Putin supporter.

Pretty much exactly my thoughts.

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president,

What makes you say that?

I thought it was fairly clear he was unqualified, and his lack of experience in government was an obvious tipoff that he would not have any detailed grasp of the job requirements.

The key problems to me are (1) has he assembled a broad enough cross-section of experienced advisors such that he at least a sufficient number of them who can provide sound advice on running the country - all of them don't have to have experience, but some key advisors must, and (2) to what degree he listens to those providing sound advice.

To be clear (and fair) at least some of his advisors are competent. And it's evident that on at least some occasions, he listens to them.

We haven't had a Bay of Pigs moment. Yet.

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president,

I think what the primaries--and the general election--did was to identify that we have a significant portion of our population that wants a president who has a fundamentally different concept about what the difficulties and complexities of being president should be.

I am curious as to,what the qualifications for President are that Trump lacks/lacked.

Especially I would appreciate your thoughts, Rick, but anybody is free to chime in.

I think a President is clean, reverent, trustworthy...how does,the,rest,of,that go?

That may seem facetious, but all of us have personal qualities we would like to see in a Potus. For me, those qualities include but are not limited to, honestly, articulateness,, a sense of humor, a lack of a sense of self-importance. But I would not elevate this wish wish to the level of being qualifications.

(04-28-2017 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am curious as to,what the qualifications for President are that Trump lacks/lacked.

Especially I would appreciate your thoughts, Rick, but anybody is free to chime in.

I think a President is clean, reverent, trustworthy...how does,the,rest,of,that go?

That may seem facetious, but all of us have personal qualities we would like to see in a Potus. For me, those qualities include but are not limited to, honestly, articulateness,, a sense of humor, a lack of a sense of self-importance. But I would not elevate this wish wish to the level of being qualifications.

Do you really think he lacks a sense of self-importance?

(04-29-2017 11:34 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am curious as to,what the qualifications for President are that Trump lacks/lacked.
Especially I would appreciate your thoughts, Rick, but anybody is free to chime in.
I think a President is clean, reverent, trustworthy...how does,the,rest,of,that go?
That may seem facetious, but all of us have personal qualities we would like to see in a Potus. For me, those qualities include but are not limited to, honestly, articulateness,, a sense of humor, a lack of a sense of self-importance. But I would not elevate this wish wish to the level of being qualifications.

Do you really think he lacks a sense of self-importance?

Did you read what he wrote?