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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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:

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

How does this crap follow from the Huffington Post article?

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

More garbage.

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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.