Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

There is an awful lot of talk about so and so not being qualified for president.

I am curious, what do you think qualifies one to be president? (Not the constitutional qualifications).

To be honest I think a lot of it is just having connections, who your friends are, and who is willing to cover up your mistakes and gaffs to make you look good so as to further their own agenda.

Experience as an executive in some major capacity ought to be one. Having some significant time and success in the private sector also ought to be a factor. Also being a state governor in a state where the governor is the executive and the state politics require some significant opposition party politics.

These factors end up also requiring or resulting in the person being wealthy and powerful. The current and past couple administrations show what the lack of such experience leads to and the chaos it results in.

Well, I'd give a few points for poise, relative attractiveness (I hate to say that, but.....this goes for either sex), and high emotional intelligence / advanced social skills. Check, check for Oprah. Ted Cruz, not so much.

Ivy wrote:Well, I'd give a few points for poise, relative attractiveness (I hate to say that, but.....this goes for either sex), and high emotional intelligence / advanced social skills. A psychological evaluation should suggest there are minimal or no DSM Cluster B traits (narcissism, antisocial personality, borderline personality, and so forth.....) Check, check for Oprah. Ted Cruz, not so much.

Wow...In great contrast to what we have now, where narcissism is his highest rating....How do you classify the trait that keeps you from ever getting along with anyone, being liked by anyone else in the world, and garnering consensus with other political figures, even in your own party??....it seems that it would be so easy NOT to elect someone like that...but the American people sure know how to ....

SolaDude wrote:

Ivy wrote:Well, I'd give a few points for poise, relative attractiveness (I hate to say that, but.....this goes for either sex), and high emotional intelligence / advanced social skills. A psychological evaluation should suggest there are minimal or no DSM Cluster B traits (narcissism, antisocial personality, borderline personality, and so forth.....) Check, check for Oprah. Ted Cruz, not so much.

Wow...I would think that narcissism would be his highest rating....How do you classify the trait that keeps you from ever getting along with anyone, being liked by anyone else in the world, and garnering consensus with other political figures, even in your own party??

Curmudgeon, not otherwise specified

Ivy wrote:

SolaDude wrote:

Ivy wrote:Well, I'd give a few points for poise, relative attractiveness (I hate to say that, but.....this goes for either sex), and high emotional intelligence / advanced social skills. A psychological evaluation should suggest there are minimal or no DSM Cluster B traits (narcissism, antisocial personality, borderline personality, and so forth.....) Check, check for Oprah. Ted Cruz, not so much.

Wow...I would think that narcissism would be his highest rating....How do you classify the trait that keeps you from ever getting along with anyone, being liked by anyone else in the world, and garnering consensus with other political figures, even in your own party??

Curmudgeon, not otherwise specified

Sorry, Ivy....I changed my post while you were writing this one....I thought you were classifying Trump...obviously you were not...

"Curmudgeon, not otherwise specified".....that's pretty funny.......

No, Sola, not classifying anyone.....wouldn't be ethical......I apologize that I didn't word that sentence better to make that clear. Will go back and try to correct it. I do feel strongly that there should be a thorough psychological evaluation done for anyone who plans to run for president, is running, etc. Not sure how that would work, or at what point it should be administered, and who should or would have any access to this information. It would be very sticky to manage.

Ivy wrote:No, Sola, not classifying anyone.....wouldn't be ethical......I apologize that I didn't word that sentence better to make that clear. Will go back and try to correct it. I do feel strongly that there should be a thorough psychological evaluation done for anyone who plans to run for president, is running, etc. Not sure how that would work, or at what point it should be administered, and who should or would have any access to this information. It would be very sticky to manage.

No need to apologize...it was fine....I had not been out of bed long before I started reading this morning and just read it with half a brain....anyway, it would STM that whatever test was given would really have to be planned very brilliantly to survive the inevitable allegations of biasness, being "rigged", etc....even if both parties picked one psychological group to test all candidates for the Democratic and Republican nomination for President, somebody is going to inevitably raise cain about an "inside job", all that kind of stuff....it just would STM to be an impossible undertaking that would ultimately lose validity and credibility (even if it did not deserve such) because of all the wing-nuts and unethical politicians and others out there.....also I would suppose both parties would have to agree on the criteria NOT qualifying someone to run for President as a result of those tests...and that sounds like a monumental task of itself to me....you know, you want to run Trump (or whoever) for President, so you move to have those criteria changed....