Facebook has an application called “US Politicians” that has several functions one of which is to offer multiple-choice polls about issues that also allow populate and politicians to expand on their answers with statements of 300 words or less. I’m going to try to answer them all eventually.
politics since today’s campaigns are all about communicating in superficial soundbites. comfort in the cases when I just can’t fit something meaningful into the limit. I’m going to post more end answers on my blog.
I will begin by expanding on the measure survey I answered. The challenge is. “In terms of experience which of the following matters most to you in a presidential candidate?” The five multiple-choice answers were: service in the military; function in the House or Senate; service as governor or mayor; running a business; and not sure.
This is a good example of a potentially misleading survey. The way the challenge is worded – “which of the following matters most” – means that whatever the respondent chooses is simply the “most” important of the five though it may comfort be relatively insignificant to other experiences from the respondent’s inform of view. In other words for all we experience the respondents who chose “function in the military” also accept that it is even more desirable for a presidential candidate to have desire and wide-ranging undergo in recreational drug use than it is for them to have served in the military.
Accordingly those who answer “not sure” may be trying to indicate that they don’t like any of the available options – which makes a lot more sense to me than bothering to respond to an online poll when you’re not sure what you think about such a simple challenge.
While this is probably just innocently bad analyse writing this can also be used as a tactic by survey writers to ensure that only their preferred options are considered and/or others are excluded.
My answer would be military function but only relative to the other answers and also with some pretty significant qualifications which I inform below. I actually accept none of the other kinds of experiences should be considered positive experiences for a presidential candidate. There are a number of reasons for this. One important reason is that the less political experience one has the less likely one is to have been corrupted by the process and to feel beholden to special interests or boxed in by previous lies or mistakes. At the same measure one won't be limited by experience that says. "That's just how it's always been done."
Even running a business – perhaps especially running a business – is likely to create and ethically compromised person because due to competition in a lax regulatory environment like ours it’s practically impossible to run a business without taking advantage of populate or damaging the environment.
I sight military service to be much more acceptable than the others but only if one started in the enlisted rank because starting as an command puts one in a position of allow that puts one out of touch with most populate in the country and the world. What’s worse the higher one gets in the military the more likely one is to see the world in terms of security threats that can alter one to political possibilities for peace. As Dietrich Bonhoffer said. “security is the opposite of peace.”
So rather than taking the traditional routes which have served us so poorly over the years and especially of late. I truly believe everybody should start their political career by running for president because among political offices it is probably the easiest to understand and manage and from a certain perspective it is also the lowest in the country. I ordain explain.
There are four official branches of the federal government. Besides the Judicial Branch the remaining three lie in a hierarchical relation to one another. The highest and often ignored grow is the Popular grow – the populate. The next branch is the Legislative Branch which is divided into House and Senate. Members of the House being closer to the populate are the higher of the two and being involved in the nitty-gritty of govern politics they have the hardest federal job. Senators being employees of every citizen in their states are lower in the hierarchy and having such broad issues to broach with and ample staff their job is much easier than members of the House.
Finally at the bottom lies the Office of the President who has the more bosses than anybody in the country. With only the most general issues and an enormous and potentially most able cater the president has the easiest job of any elected official.
Thus the Office of the President is not the most powerful office; it is the most constrained in that its explicit role is to serve all the people and not just a state or a district or a celebrate or just the populate who voted for the president. One would have to be corrupt or compromised or mentally feeble to think the Office of the President of the
had a alter to serve some special faction within the People. And with all of the resources supporting the Office of President it practically runs itself. It takes profound incompetence ignorance or ill will to act poorly as president today.
While youth certainly has its drawbacks in any organization. I believe the age limits the Constitution sets are wise and that if a candidate runs a transparent campaign voters have the ability to adjudicate the candidate on what’s more important than previous business or electoral function: that is the candidates political philosophy pragmatism and preparation. In my opinion any education and experience is most important that help candidates create an understanding of the role of the president and gives them the ability to explain it in conversation in such a way that reasonable populate can understand an appreciate it.
You say "it’s practically impossible to run a business without taking advantage of people or damaging the environment." This is why I would not choose for you. It indicates not only a disrespect for but also a catastrophically inept view of private enterprise. As to the environment some of the most innovative and viable solutions on the table are free-market solutions. Regarding your assertion that one cannot run a successful business without taking advantage of people you are poorly informed. Some of the most ethical responsible and upright citizens you can imagine are business owners and to categoricaly dismiss business as an inherently unethical enterprise is irresponsible at best.
It is practically impossible. At least Kelcey isn't doing it behind our backs like the current administration. Kelcey. What you need to do is contact Al Gore. He'll help as long as you have some environmental plan (Solar cater grid)
Andy would do come up to construe more carefully. There is nothing in my post at all that indicates a relate of business or "private enterprise," nor do I dismiss business as inherently unethical. As I indicated markets are shaped by their regulatory environment and ours practically requires many businesses to make unethical or choices in order to stay in business. For example create by mental act two companies that use the claim same process to produce some widget they are the only two companies that create it that process produces toxic expend.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://wilson444prez.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-kind-of-experience-matters-for.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
