Quote:
Originally Posted by tvbound
Agreed.
Besides, who gets to make the final determination that a candidate isn't qualified? What happens when two professionals disagree on a candidate's qualifications? What traits disqualifies a candidate? Etc., etc., etc.
Quite frankly, applying basic intellectual acuity levels to voters (ie: ability to change mind after being presented with facts proving their "opinion/feeling" is dead wrong)...would serve our country much better.
Alas, neither will, nor should - ever happen.
The premise of the thread, is simply a not very clever attempt...at a backdoor 'P' fight.
|
What ? Thought I stated the premise of the thread clearly ! I'll try one more time. As a career researcher, thought requirements and fitness for office (NO MATTER what party an individual belongs to) would (hopefully) prompt some stimulating discussion. Even reflect some analytical thinking. Maybe not. Any requirements or prerequisites are perhaps just too qualitative ? Such things as must have reached age 25 (or 35, or whatever), and must not have passed age 80 (or 85, or whatever) at the time of filing ? When I was first in grad school in psychology individuals with a range of 40-54 on the Wechsler were considered moderately retarded. Not really qualitative as it was measurable, but, should there be a foundation level of mental ability so the individual representing the wishes of others, has the ability to understand the issues before them ? Anyway, in no way was this any kind of "back door" attempt at anything, other than to stimulate an interesting discussion. What a leap !