(04-29-2017 09:58 PM)Rick Gerlach 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.

That's a fair question Buddy.

I think the reality is that each of us has our own standards as to what would qualify a person for the job of President.

On a whole, I judge Trump to be unqualified, but my judgment is probably mostly subjective. I'll agree that there are very few actual qualifications, and he obviously meets those.

Thinking about it some:

* like to elect someone who either has enough political experience that they can work with Congress to pass legislation, or has the personal qualities / personality that would allow him to reach across aisles and effect constructive compromise.
* has enough understanding of diplomacy to avoid inadvertently misstepping in ways that impact our relationships with other countries.

There are others . .

Note that Trump would not necessarily need to be able to meet those criteria on his own. I.E., if he can bring in the correct staff to enable him to accomplish the above (even if he individually was "in Rick's eyes" unqualified)

The fact that I often found myself thinking during the first month or so "Geez, couldn't any of his staff convince him to handle this differently, (or not to say X, Y or Z)" would indicate that he is 'learning'
how to determine which advisors he should trust, and then at what time and to what degree he should trust them.

Just because someone is unqualified when they assume a job does NOT mean that they can't grow into it, or to gain the necessary experience on the job.

Not everything he and his staff has done has been wrong. But I don't think they've YET done enough things right to move him from "unqualified for the job", to "he's learned the job."

Don't know if that helps answer your question as to how I'm thinking about this. . . but it helps me to think about it in a more specific context than my general "I didn't think he was qualified." statements.

I aapreciate your views, Rick, because I know you give them a lot of thought.

I gues I am having trouble differentiating between qualities we want a POTUS to have and qualifications. I, for example, want my POTUS to honest. So if a person, not naming names, is experienced in Congress and in diplomacy, yet is dishonest, is that person qualified? Not by my set of desired qualities, but perhaps by yours.

I wonder which, if any, of these former Presidents would meet your criteria: Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Eisenhower.

I just think this whole "unqualified" idea is highly subjective and individual. But the Constitution does not even specify that POTUS needs to be able to read or write.

I do think that there is a sharp learning curve in evidence. For example, he rushed into the travel ban and tried to push through a vote on healthcare, and now he is going slower and gathering support in a more traditional manner. I think he has put some very good people in office, notably Tiller and Mattis. I am less worried about the US than I was a few months ago.