Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just what kind of qualifications should the public look for in elected officials? I know that Sarah Palin is pretty and Herschel Walker was athletic but surely there must be some more job-related qualifications for high office.
One job career information website listed several qualifications including the statement:
Quote:
Successful candidates come from a variety of occupations, but many have experience in politics or management positions. Graduate degrees in law and business are also common, particularly in federal and state offices. A master’s degree in public administration, including courses such as public financial management and legal issues in public administration, can be helpful.
Other talents to be considered include work experience with a strong record of accomplishment in business, education or politics. Knowledge of the needs of private citizens was high, too, along with leadership skills to organize others to work together on tasks and effective communication skills.
Leaving aside political judgments (Please don’t list as a qualification “non-liberal”) what do others feel are the qualifications and prior experience needed for federal office holders?
Well, this seems obvious to me, and it brings up in my mind how Ron DeSantis is acting. The whole point of an elected candidate is to represent the people and to put in place what they want. (I hate this...) ---> PERIOD.
What else is there to say? My SO were just talking about this, because it's, in a way, weird to watch DeSantis because for the most part, he actually acts like a representative of "his" people. He acts the way elected reps are supposed to act. He doesn't speak a bunch of nonsensical BS, and he doesn't do the former and then act in the opposite.
It's almost foreign to hear him speak because he sounds like a normal, everyday person who listens to "us" and acts in accordance to "our" wishes, just like how it's supposed to work. VERY rare. (Again, the quotes are there because I'm not fortunate enough to live in Florida right now. lol)
Just what kind of qualifications should the public look for in elected officials? I know that Sarah Palin is pretty and Herschel Walker was athletic but surely there must be some more job-related qualifications for high office.
Other talents to be considered include work experience with a strong record of accomplishment in business, education or politics. Knowledge of the needs of private citizens was high, too, along with leadership skills to organize others to work together on tasks and effective communication skills.
Leaving aside political judgments (Please don’t list as a qualification “non-liberal”) what do others feel are the qualifications and prior experience needed for federal office holders?
They shouldn't have dementia.
An honest Congress would have long since removed creepy Joe.
I dont think anyone is qualified to run for public office. However, if I believed that democracy made any sense whatsoever, I would probably prefer to vote for someone who has business success. Government is the worst aspects of a business, a monopoly with legal immunity. Take away the evil stuff, it is supposed to run like a business. We are supposed to be the customers and they are supposed to be providing us with a service that we would willingly pay for.
I'm not sure that business success is the best preparation. Government is public administration. Much of the Constitution is stated as controls on what government officials can do so a background in law is very valuable for a government official. In business there is less stress on seeing another's viewpoint and in working by agreement. Business executives can be much more autocratic than political representatives can get away with.
We have seen what happens when an official does not understand Constitutional limits on constricting speech, expression and religion. I've seen mistakes on the left and the right by people who should have known better.
I'm not sure that business success is the best preparation. Government is public administration. Much of the Constitution is stated as controls on what government officials can do so a background in law is very valuable for a government official.
The Constitution is written so any one can understand it. It is 4,400 words long.
By way of contrast, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is 381,517 words long and written in a way so no one can understand it.The regulations emanating from the ACA were 11,588,500 words in 2013 and are probably double that by now.
We need fewer lawyers in government, not more. Let's get more farmers in there, doctors, business executives, and small business owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault
In business there is less stress on seeing another's viewpoint and in working by agreement. Business executives can be much more autocratic than political representatives can get away with.
You once again demonstrate you have zero understanding of how businesses work, especially larger ones. The best business leaders delegate, build consensus, offer guidance to direct reports, inspire front line workers and report to boards. There is much more, but it is anything but autocratic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault;63220318[B
]We have seen what happens when an official does not understand Constitutional limits on constricting speech, expression and religion[/b]. I've seen mistakes on the left and the right by people who should have known better.
For instance: In Florida, the Republicans passed a NRA-sponsored law to limit the questions a doctor could ask a patient. Had they ever heard of the First Amendment? The federal courts blocked the law.
In IL, retiring congressman Bobby Rush was among the aldermen who took down a painting off a wall which they considered disrespectful to the recently-deceased mayor. Had they heard of the First Amendment? After a couple of years of litigation, the city paid the artist a nice settlement for violating his freedom of expression.
In both situations a competent lawyer could have avoided the problems and the payment of the attorney fees for the litigants.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57813
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
They shouldn't have dementia.
An honest Congress would have long since removed creepy Joe.
I'm a big proponent of term limits, but we could limit the age for running to 70. Since you have to pretty much be rich and supported by big business to get on the ballot, I would also suggest that no one can raise campaign funds. Anyone wanting to run for office would secure a minimum number of signatures in the jurisdiction from unpaid supporters, then the political entity (local commission/board, city, county, state or federal) would issue a flat amount to each candidate from tax money, based on what they have budgeted for that purpose. They would have to account for how that is spent so that audits could show nothing more spent on the campaign, so all candidates had the same opportunity. So, for example, in the last election both Biden and Trump would receive 4 million, to be spent on campaigning. No incumbent would be allowed to use their office to campaign. A president could not use Airforce one to go to a rally, unless they paid for it out of their campaign fund.
I'm a big proponent of term limits, but we could limit the age for running to 70. Since you have to pretty much be rich and supported by big business to get on the ballot, I would also suggest that no one can raise campaign funds. Anyone wanting to run for office would secure a minimum number of signatures in the jurisdiction from unpaid supporters, then the political entity (local commission/board, city, county, state or federal) would issue a flat amount to each candidate from tax money, based on what they have budgeted for that purpose. They would have to account for how that is spent so that audits could show nothing more spent on the campaign, so all candidates had the same opportunity. So, for example, in the last election both Biden and Trump would receive 4 million, to be spent on campaigning. No incumbent would be allowed to use their office to campaign. A president could not use Airforce one to go to a rally, unless they paid for it out of their campaign fund.
You have some good points. I think that Supreme Court justices should have 25 year terms, also. Then they go back to somewhere as a federal judge.
The Citizens United case blocks much of what you propose, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
