Presidential qualities that need to be proven before election

In the earlier post I think “College Board” could play a pivotal role in making it easier to make a better decision for president, I put down some ideas of things that should be tested for in a presidential candidate.  Then in the post This is how I would use some of the time presidential candidates use on stump speeches, I set it up so that you could find out not only what the president believes but why he believes.  This also showed how a presidential candidate would handle people who feel adverse to him.  Then in the post This would be my campaign in the modern world I showed a way for a candidate to show what he believed in by how he spent his money and a way to campaign that would make the presidential run valuable even if the candidate lost.  That still leaves things that we want to find out if the candidate has that we aren’t able to quantify.  Here are some of those important things

  • diplomacy
  • decisive action
  • Team building
  • Integrity
  • Exudes Strength
  • Compassion
  • Law abiding

These are just some of those qualities and I believe that the debates are good ways to see if some of these qualities are in the candidate.  However I don’t think that all these qualities are represented.  This post  isn’t about changing the election process but is instead about generating a list of qualities that the president should have.  If you have any qualities that you think a president should have please reply with them.  Once I have a complete list of what the leader of the free world needs to be, then I am going to try to find ways to test for it that are cheap.

6 thoughts on “Presidential qualities that need to be proven before election

  1. I understand what you’re saying about stump speeches and how there are better ways to have that time spent. They’re pricey, time consuming, and for the most part there are a lot of things one could get done in lieu of them. However, I think there’s something to be said for them. I think for the supporters it shows the candidate appreciates their support and solidifies their confidence in voting for him. They also make the candidate seem real since, for most of use, politicians are rarely more than just social figures we see on TV.

    The list of qualities you mention that a president should exude are all relevant and necessary to not being an awful president. I think debates are too moderated for any real purpose to come from them and tend to show how good candidates are at saying whatever keeps them from follow up questions and real problem solving.

    I think a person’s track record and history, as well as an ability to answer tough questions on the spot are one of the best ways to see if a candidate does possess all these traits. For better or worse, charisma also plays a huge part in these elections when. I heard on the radio a year or so back while driving to school that in 1968 when Nixon ran against Humphrey, Nixon was more popular among people who listen to radio, while Humphrey was more popular among television watchers. Again, I have no sources, but I think the prospect brings to mind the necessity of charisma for a president.

    • Gratifying as it may be to whack on the guy, some things bear keipneg in mind:1. We have a head of state who is also head of government. A figure of politics who is at the same tine supposed to be above politics.2. He’d be a pretty dim fellow to not pick and choose his issues at a time when he has no real power to affect them, a la FDR in the winter of 1932-33.3. To the extent one can comment on things and man the bully pulpit while waiting to take over, domestic issues are easier, given the constitutional vesting of foreign affairs as the province of the president. Domestic stuff one can talk with Congress about without treading on the outgoing’s authority quite so nakedly.4. Given the sheer volume and variety of shit the outgoing is leaving the incoming on Day 1, maybe a little garden variety prayer- by us all, for us all- and for the new president is particular, would be a good thing. We should want our presidents to succeed, and in fairness ought to give them the chance to be sworn in before romping on them with both feet.

  2. My spouse and i have been now delighted that Raymond managed to deal with his studies through the entire ideas he came across using your web page. It’s not at all simplistic to just choose to be releasing solutions that the rest may have been selling. And we all understand we now have you to thank for that. The entire illustrations you have made, the easy site menu, the relationships you make it easier to foster – it’s got most overwhelming, and it’s assisting our son in addition to the family imagine that that subject matter is entertaining, and that’s truly indispensable. Many thanks for the whole thing!

    • It has more to do with distribution of the poulpace. Republicans usually congregate, which means that even though they may be half of the population, they only have the majority in some places.There are many districts with over 90% republican population, which still only gets them one vote. Most democratic districts are 50-60% democratic, so they spread their votes over a larger area, and get more out of each person.If you look up the numbers for the last house race, youll see a load of republicans with 85-90% of the vote, and I believe only one democrat with over 90%. If you look at the senate, there are more republicans, because even though republicans might be only in a few congressional districts, they have enough numbers in those districts to win in the statewide races.

  3. Magnificent goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you are just too great. I actually like what you have acquired here, really like what you are stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it sensible. I can not wait to read much more from you. This is really a tremendous website.

  4. “bordering very closely on gecinode”–we obviously can’t know until a certain line is crossed, but there are lots of disquieting implications.As for your second question: what do I think Israel should do? I will be the first to admit that I don’t have any amazing answers, but I submit that isn’t especially germane.I’m not in charge of the largest military force in the region (Israel) or the world (US), so I have neither the intelligence assets, the communications assets, or the diplomatic contacts to know what they know.What I can point out, however, is that what Israel is currently doing in Gaza is way out of whack and unlikely to ever give them the peace they say they want.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *