Coffeehouse Thread

194 posts

Most Inexperienced President Yet?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    jonathansam​pson

    Looks like America just woke up with one of the most inexperienced Presidents yet - kinda reminds me of those movies where a man finds an exciting woman, spends the night with her in a drunken orgy of excitement, only to wake up the next morning and see that they apparently stumbled into a Las Vegas chapel and got married...."WTF Did I do!?"

    I still don't see what qualified Obama - anybody care to put my mind at ease? (This is a serious request, not trolling)

    Or did somebody scare us into marrying her?



  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    You had a choice between Obama and McCain. America chose Obama by a landslide.


    George W Bush had experience - and he started two illegal wars and the economy will enter a formal recession because of decisions made on his watch.

    Do you really think Obama will be worse - bearing in mind that the president has some of the smartest people working for him in America? The best kind of president is one that isn't swayed by lobby-groups, knows his principles and doesn't ignore his advisors. He doesn't need any other experience IMO.

  • User profile image
    jonathansam​pson

    evildictaitor said:
    You had a choice between Obama and McCain. America chose Obama by a landslide.

    George W Bush had experience - and he started two illegal wars and the economy will enter a formal recession because of decisions made on his watch.

    Do you really think Obama will be worse - bearing in mind that the president has some of the smartest people working for him in America? The best kind of president is one that isn't swayed by lobby-groups, knows his principles and doesn't ignore his advisors. He doesn't need any other experience IMO.
    You didn't give me any evidence of qualifying experience...I'm sincerely being honest here, I want to know what qualifies this man to be one of the most powerful leaders in the World. "He isn't W" is hardly enough. As a matter of fact, that type of argument is neutral, as it doesn't ensure he's any better, or any worse.

    Please, what qualifies him?

  • User profile image
    BlackTiger

    evildictaitor said:
    You had a choice between Obama and McCain. America chose Obama by a landslide.

    George W Bush had experience - and he started two illegal wars and the economy will enter a formal recession because of decisions made on his watch.

    Do you really think Obama will be worse - bearing in mind that the president has some of the smartest people working for him in America? The best kind of president is one that isn't swayed by lobby-groups, knows his principles and doesn't ignore his advisors. He doesn't need any other experience IMO.
    Biggest Obama's problem not "experience" (lack of), but "good intentions"...
    We'll see after 1-2 years.

    If you stumbled and fell down, it doesn't mean yet, that you're going in the wrong direction.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    jonathansam​pson

    BlackTiger said:
    evildictaitor said:
    *snip*
    Biggest Obama's problem not "experience" (lack of), but "good intentions"...
    We'll see after 1-2 years.
    I don't really think the President of the United States is a "we'll just see how it turns out" type of position. A person should be qualified, not "given a chance to see how it all turns out." Would you do the same with the position of a surgeon?

    "Meet your new doctor. He's a first year medical student, having scored very highly in his anatomy-identification class. He'll be performing your brain surgery today. He doesn't have any experience really, but he has good intentions. We'll give him 1 or 2 surgeries to see how he turns out."

    This works for a janitor, but not a President.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    What qualifying experience would Palin have had to become one of the most powerful leaders in the world?

  • User profile image
    hayrob

    jonathansampson said:
    BlackTiger said:
    *snip*
    I don't really think the President of the United States is a "we'll just see how it turns out" type of position. A person should be qualified, not "given a chance to see how it all turns out." Would you do the same with the position of a surgeon?

    "Meet your new doctor. He's a first year medical student, having scored very highly in his anatomy-identification class. He'll be performing your brain surgery today. He doesn't have any experience really, but he has good intentions. We'll give him 1 or 2 surgeries to see how he turns out."

    This works for a janitor, but not a President.
    Did the fella who split rails have "experience" or was he "qualified"? Winning elections usually means that you are qualified.

  • User profile image
    jonathansam​pson

    Bas said:

    What qualifying experience would Palin have had to become one of the most powerful leaders in the world?

    Bas, how is that in the least bit a affirmation of Obama's experience? I'm not suggesting that Palin's experience qualifies her for President. As a matter of fact, she wasn't even running for President. Obama was, and did, and won. What qualified him? Can you answer that without shifting the burden?

  • User profile image
    jonathansam​pson

    hayrob said:
    jonathansampson said:
    *snip*
    Did the fella who split rails have "experience" or was he "qualified"? Winning elections usually means that you are qualified.
    Hayrob, that's begging the question. "Because he won." So why did he win? "Because he's qualified." What made him qualified? "Because he won." Circular reasoning doesn't prove a point, nor does it make Obama qualified.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    jonathansampson said:
    Bas said:
    *snip*
    Bas, how is that in the least bit a affirmation of Obama's experience? I'm not suggesting that Palin's experience qualifies her for President. As a matter of fact, she wasn't even running for President. Obama was, and did, and won. What qualified him? Can you answer that without shifting the burden?

    Bas, how is that in the least bit a affirmation of Obama's experience?

     
    It's not. I'm also asking a question. That's possible in a thread, you know.

    As a matter of fact, she wasn't even running for President.


    No, but she was running for a position as one of the most powerful leaders in the world. And since you asked what qualified Obama to be one of the most powerful leaders in the World, I figured I'd ask the same about Palin, because I'm curious. Besides, if the president dies, the veep becomes president, so I think seeing if the running mate qualifies as president too, just in case, is pretty important. Like you said, "We'll see what happens" is something you do for the position of a janitor, not a president.

  • User profile image
    tfraser

    The only requirement Obama needed to qualify him for president-elect was to receive the majority of votes in the election, which he got. Therefore he is qualified.

    Qualification and experience are two different concepts. If it's experience details that you want then look at his Wikipedia article.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    jonathansampson said:
    hayrob said:
    *snip*
    Hayrob, that's begging the question. "Because he won." So why did he win? "Because he's qualified." What made him qualified? "Because he won." Circular reasoning doesn't prove a point, nor does it make Obama qualified.
    What kind of "experience" is required to be a US President?

    Being a senator helps, both main candidates were. Granted, one for much longer than the other, but would there be that much appreciable difference?

    I don't believe "experience" helps when it comes to electing someone to president for the first time, it's only a valid qualifier when someone previously served as a president in the term before or as a vice-president, something none of these candiates have.

    Sure, Obama might not have the same "experience" (however you define it) as McCain, but there is more to a presidential candiate's curriculum-vitae than that. People vote for policy and intentions too, and in my opinion they count for more.

    By your logic in a presidential competition between Cthulhu and a labrador puppy Cthulhu must be voted in because he has far more relevant experience than the puppy... but which one is going to kill and devour you slowly afterwards?

  • User profile image
    hayrob

    jonathansampson said:
    hayrob said:
    *snip*
    Hayrob, that's begging the question. "Because he won." So why did he win? "Because he's qualified." What made him qualified? "Because he won." Circular reasoning doesn't prove a point, nor does it make Obama qualified.
    Quite simple - if you can organise a multi million dollar campaign, demonstrate the energy to stick at it for two years, deal with the media, gain the respect of international politicians etc etc etc etc, then you are demonstrating that you have some very significant ability. Then get more votes than anyone else.

    Nobody, but nobody, is guaranteed to be great - history judges that. All we can ask is that the candidate does everything that we ask of him before we give him the job.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    W3bbo said:
    jonathansampson said:
    *snip*
    What kind of "experience" is required to be a US President?

    Being a senator helps, both main candidates were. Granted, one for much longer than the other, but would there be that much appreciable difference?

    I don't believe "experience" helps when it comes to electing someone to president for the first time, it's only a valid qualifier when someone previously served as a president in the term before or as a vice-president, something none of these candiates have.

    Sure, Obama might not have the same "experience" (however you define it) as McCain, but there is more to a presidential candiate's curriculum-vitae than that. People vote for policy and intentions too, and in my opinion they count for more.

    By your logic in a presidential competition between Cthulhu and a labrador puppy Cthulhu must be voted in because he has far more relevant experience than the puppy... but which one is going to kill and devour you slowly afterwards?
    I'd guess that George Washington didn't have a lot of experience as as a politician in the United States either. He was a pretty good president though. Tongue Out

  • User profile image
    Ion Todirel

    jonathansampson said:
    BlackTiger said:
    *snip*
    I don't really think the President of the United States is a "we'll just see how it turns out" type of position. A person should be qualified, not "given a chance to see how it all turns out." Would you do the same with the position of a surgeon?

    "Meet your new doctor. He's a first year medical student, having scored very highly in his anatomy-identification class. He'll be performing your brain surgery today. He doesn't have any experience really, but he has good intentions. We'll give him 1 or 2 surgeries to see how he turns out."

    This works for a janitor, but not a President.
    you can't compare a surgeon with a president when it comes to experience, that's just lame

  • User profile image
    jonathansam​pson

    tfraser said:

    The only requirement Obama needed to qualify him for president-elect was to receive the majority of votes in the election, which he got. Therefore he is qualified.

    Qualification and experience are two different concepts. If it's experience details that you want then look at his Wikipedia article.

    I've read his wikipedia article - care to point out what experience makes him the most qualified?

  • User profile image
    jonathansam​pson

    hayrob said:
    jonathansampson said:
    *snip*
    Quite simple - if you can organise a multi million dollar campaign, demonstrate the energy to stick at it for two years, deal with the media, gain the respect of international politicians etc etc etc etc, then you are demonstrating that you have some very significant ability. Then get more votes than anyone else.

    Nobody, but nobody, is guaranteed to be great - history judges that. All we can ask is that the candidate does everything that we ask of him before we give him the job.
    Popularity = Experience and Qualification? What type of nonsense world did I wake up in today!?

  • User profile image
    jonathansam​pson

    Ion Todirel said:
    jonathansampson said:
    *snip*
    you can't compare a surgeon with a president when it comes to experience, that's just lame
    Alright - forget the analogy then. What qualifications or experience made Obama the better vote?

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.