Let's Define A Good Presidential Candidate
 

Dear Guests:

It seems when we address presidential candidates many of us cannot get past the name calling and derogatory remarks. This means we speak little of substantive value, the nations priorities or our vision for the future of this nation.

So let's define a good presidential candidate without providing the name of any single individual but rather only focusing on skill sets, education, background, temper and otherwise all the bona fides you deem are necessary for a president to be successful and to represent "we the people"

I will forego my list because and this is another suggestion, that we not try and play one up-man-ship (ie this isn't a contest but an attempt to gather people's beliefs in what is required for the most important job on this planet)

My hunch is that this is going to be a very short thread. Please prove me wrong

Personal Best Regards:

ABC

Anybody But Clinton

or Sanders

So You Want to Be President: How's Your Interfaith IQ?

This is a good article above. Respect for the US Constitution and the Office of the Presidency and its revered history would be extremely important to me. A long view of what this President was trying to accomplish during his or her terms of office.

Knowledge and acceptance of the limitations placed by the US Constitution and traditions on the Office of the President.

Actions and words that could be held up as models for the younger generations of Americans.

Respect for education and open access to information.

Liberal cr@p. Huffington Post!!! How can liberals be so naive to believe pie in the sky, Hollywood style, LSD induced Obama type Utopia? Are they really that lazy, spoiled and dependent on someone else? Liberals are weaklings, always ready for someone else to do the work so that they can enjoy the fruits of their labor. Someone else can defend them so that they can criticize how they do it. Ridicule their religious beliefs and embrace foreign culture and radical beliefs, and then attempt to use the religion they ridicule as a weapon against the faithful merely to win an argument, an attempt to justify their immoral/unethical behavior. Liberals are dependent on others and can be led like guppies by anyone that bribes them. We can live without liberals but they can't survive without us. They are a needy bunch.

The last thing in the world people need is a person like you. The far right needs liberals more that liberals need them. Without liberals, what would the far right complain about? That is the only thing that they are good at complaining. Solving problems, and getting alone with others isn't in their playbook, which consists of one page.

We are going to have to wait at least another four years to answer this question. The last thing a majority of "we the people" want is a good presidential candidate. The parties have gone to their corners, and nothing in the middle is acceptable.

Obama gets blamed for the mess that we are in; however, Republicans can try to wash their hands clean, but that dirt will not come off with soap. Given the foolishness on display at the Republicans debate, the soap would be put to better use, if it was directed at their mouths.

So far the thread participants demonstrate they would rather attack and disparage each other than participate in the question and subject at hand.
Seems to be a pattern for some.

My first suggestion is the candidate shall not be a law trained, legal profession, lawyer.

Secondly the candidate shall not be a career politician (of the cronyism ilk).

The candidate should have a record of accomplishment; actually show measured and quantified accomplished as a direct result of their initiative.

A reasonable understanding of business especially accounting and finances.

The candidate must be able to demonstrate how well they have performed; promises made VS promises kept.

Just for starters.

How does this crap follow from the Huffington Post article?

More garbage.

How about responding to the intent of the thread instead of bickering with each other or selves (for some).

It does seem fruitless to try reasoning with some people at this time of the election cycle.

No, the world needs people that will do the work. Liberals need people like us to support them. They are needy. Yes, we complain. Why? Because liberals feel they are entitled to the fruits of our labor. They are leaches on society. Getting along to a liberal means that we should agree with them. If you don't agree with them, they will call names, attempt to use religion against those of faith, and call them selfish if they don't "share" what they earn. NO, we don't need liberals for anything but target practice. They are not even good for cannon fodder. There, that feels better. We don't need no stinkin' PC.

Poor little Obie, gets blamed for everything. If the Republicans would have given in and helped pass that monster Obamacare, it would be better. It wouldn't such a failure, if only the Republicans were also responsible for it. And if the Republicans weren't such a party of "no" then Obama wouldn't have to break the law constantly with illegal E.O.s. He is such a misunderstood chap. And if the Republicans weren't so bad, then we wouldn't be dominated by a Democrat majority in congress........Hmmmm.....wait a minute????? Guess the people felt the Republicans had the right idea, after all, huh?

The Republicans had the right idea. That is why their perfect candidate will be their nominee most likely will be Donald Trump. You know the man that a funny face for every occasion.

The person that you are describing would probably be the head of a major corporation. The problem is why would anyone in that position want anything to do with career politicians that mostly likely have law degrees. If you haven't noticed, has any politician especially running for president ever admitted that he/she has done anything wrong.

The person that you described is Mitt Romney. His brief dabble in politics was governor of Mass. If anything, that should be a plus, because he had to deal with Democrats every day. Democrats had a super majority in Mass. There were some days where Romney was the only Republican in the State House.

The title of the thread is "Let's Define A Good Presidential Candidate".

The definition is "a Female Democratic candidate named Hillary Clinton".

'Nuff said.

You misunderstood the title. It was not referring to the perfect criminal candidate. Unless you subscribe to a criminal dictatorship such as a third world banana republic type nation. But, I guess if you hate the police and hate the military, you would probably subscribe to a criminal leader.

Like it. :wave:

It is no use defining a good presidential candidate because there is no perfect recipe. Conservatives want an honest candidate and the liberals would prefer devious and dishonest. A conservative would want someone that is not going to spend us into debt, and the liberal perfers to play now and pay later....preferably when their kids can pay it back for them, or steal the money from those that are better than them to pay their way. A conservative will be morally and ethically motivated, whereas a liberal is free from such restrictions. A conservative will be loyal to the people and those that serve us, and the liberal will challenge every motive of anyone that doesn't conform to their standards, preferring others to fight their battles for them and to protect them.

So, all the traits that conservatives prefer are just restrictions and negatives to a liberal.

The only good Clinton president is a deceased Clinton. Otherwise, they are just a waste of oxygen.

How about we agree. You think Clinton is your candidate....with emphasis on being a female candidate. Fine. That is what you choose from what is put in front of you.

Now. If you had the chalk in your hand and could write on the board a description of the ideal candidate.....let's see what you come up with.

Don't insult us by coming back with Clinton because we know if it was yours to design....you surely would offer up a different person.

Don't be shy....get creative.

The silence is noteworthy!

I think the person with the most amount of White House Experience.

I think when Bill was elected you also got Hillary's opinion and expertise. She has been helping him think out problems for years. During his terms my houses went up in value and my union salary grew. I'm in the middle class [or was at least back then]. When Bill left we had a balanced budget and Social Security looked good. The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Hillary has White House experience, knows the other world leaders and how the system works. We also will have Bill's opinion and expertise. Once he left office he continued to be engaged. I think she is predictable and the other world leaders feel that way too. She has the most amount of jobs, committee memberships and experience in the government. She knows everyone on the hill and can always ask Bill, a two term President what he thinks. It's like a BOGO.

What the :censored: are you smoking and or drinking!!!

Must be the day for party jokes.
Just like Josh commenting today the successful performance of the stock market during Obama's reign.

What you have posted above and the stock market status would have happened if nobody was in the WH (pretty close to that as it is).

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you prove that?

Yep, totally agree

"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries."

Do you think this is inaccurate?

Dear guest

Thank you for addressing the topic

Personal Best Regards:

Dear Guest:

Thank you for addressing the topic

I went back to read the topic. I clearly got it wrong. That's what happens when I read the question and read the answers. By the time I got to the last post, I forgot the question especially if it goes off topic.

I thought you were looking for qualities and experiences a president should have and if any candidate has those qualities and experiences. I was thinking that experience in the position or close to the position during good times would be most important. I should have just left it at that.

Dear Guest:

The fact of life is that nature has its limits and this certainly is evident with the human race. So it is obvious that any candidate will come with some baggage.

Its therefore incumbent on a voter to do his/her homework on each candidate and with objectivity.

I agree with the fact that as an occupation we need a mix in Congress that is representative of our nation. As to president again more than occupation I would focus o the skill sets developed by the candidate, his/her success in and their chosen field.

Critical to me is moral integrity because I need to trust what the candidate is telling me. If that candidate breaches that trust the relationship between s/he and me is over.

I would prefer a candidate have military experience because to me such a candidate is keenly aware of the choices s/he make on people's lives and the country as a whole.

Experience requirements are a bit tricky in my view . Does the candidate have 10 years experience or 1 year experience 10 times over? and connected with that experience is the candidates performance . Also is the experience staff or line

But the most important aspect for me is to have a candidate that truly wants to SERVE we the people vis a vis using voters as a stepping stone to their way to becoming wealthy....a patriot

Succinctly stated we don't need a savior in chief we simply need an honest and intelligent person with a a desire to serve and who can work with all types of people to solve this nation's problems.

Personal Best Regards: