what do you think of a presidential aptitude test?

stupidcorporatewhore

hailhailkc wrote:

Oh, of course! :rolleyes: Gee, silly me. For a second there I thought maybe you came up with this aptitude test because you thought Bush was a moron or something. Don't try and sugar coat it, just say what you really think about Bush. "He's an idiot, blah, blah...."

I do think bush is (presidentially speaking) a moron.

that doesn't mean I want a democrat moron in there either.

necessity is indeed the mother of invention.

PaperPlates

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

there's smart: I can tie my shoes, balance my checkbook, do long division, be financially savvy and have retirement savings when you get there, etc.

and then there's SMART: I run the entire free world.

see the difference? If you think Bush could've become president coming from nothing not having his family name and a silver spoon in his mouth you're sorely mistaken.

wait, who did do that? Oh yeah, Bill Clinton.

Guess those puppet masters everyone's so convinced of, took those years off huh?

Milhouse VanHouten

We already have a presidential aptitude test. It's called the general election. I have a feeling it'd work pretty well if the standard for passing the aptitude test wasn't "can I see myself having a beer with this guy?".

beachdweller

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

So, it's become shockingly clear in recent years that to become president, you need one or more of three items:

1. a "prestigious" family name (if you're not smart or successful it helps if you've had a father and a grandfather who were)

2. a shitload of cash

3. someone who works for you who is able to rig elections

these things shouldn't qualify you for being president, so I had a thought.

what if there was a written test you must pass to ensure that you have at least the base knowledge of:

1. Basic world geography

2. How an economy works locally and how it feeds an international economy

3. cultures of foriegn countries and their customs

4. what a war means to your economy and the impact to your military.

Probably wouldn't hurt to be able to also pass the test that we give to immagrants.

Of course this would be applicable to both Republican and Democrat

It's just a suggestion.

don't think it'll work because you can study specifically to pass this test and it wouldn't truly get to whether you have the aptitude to be President. Besides, it would take a Constitutional amendment to change the process, and I doubt the nation could come to any consensus on what the test should be.

I think one area that could improve the process would be to have open debates where the subjects aren't known a head of time, and the rules are formulated to better suited toward debate, instead of the current systems that doesn't allow failure.

callen

listen to both Dems and Republicans on political shows......they make sense...can carry on with a conversation....valid points (not that I agree)... logical well thought out sentences......then listen to George talk....and say to myself...WTF?!?!

Uncle Leo

PaperPlates wrote:

Ill vote for convictions and steadfast beliefs over appearances and impressions every day.

I think "steadfast" is the most overrated thing in a leader. Steadfastness (if that is a word) is key to why so many people like (or at least used to like) Bush.

Believing on Wednesday what you believed on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday does not make one a great leader.

Uncle Leo

hailhailkc wrote:

Oh, of course! :rolleyes: Gee, silly me. For a second there I thought maybe you came up with this aptitude test because you thought Bush was a moron or something. Don't try and sugar coat it, just say what you really think about Bush. "He's an idiot, blah, blah...."

Yes, this is specifically about Bush. Was he born to be stupid? Probably not. What he is, at least in my opinion, is completely lacking in intellectual curiosity, or to put it another way, intellectually lazy--as evidenced by the fact that he doesn't read newspapers or watch news. He's not a guy that is particularly interested in dialogue. So he becomes someone that "goes with his gut" and almost never budges from what his gut initially tells. him. Frankly, I find intellectual laziness to be a poor quality in a leader.

And of course this should apply to both (actually and preferably "all") parties. The GOP does not have the market cornered on stupidity and/or intellectual lazyness.

But this entire thread was prompted by the current president, and rightly so.

As for the idea, I am torn. It makes sense to know that the person you are electing has a certain aptitude, but like someone said, they'd study for that test and then forget it. And if the drunken clown down the hall from my dorm room when I was in college could find a way to get an advanced copy of a History test, than I think Carl Rove could find a way to cheat on this...

brain_of_jas

Uncle Leo wrote:

I think "steadfast" is the most overrated thing in a leader. Steadfastness (if that is a word) is key to why so many people like (or at least used to like) Bush.

Believing on Wednesday what you believed on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday does not make one a great leader.

Well put. It does seem to me that George Bush is of well below the intellect required to be the most powerful man in the world. Surrounding himself with people more intelligent than him surely means that those people are the people who are really running the show, making the "puppet" description rather valid. IMO of course!

Byrnzie

PaperPlates wrote:

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

So, from what I gather, you'd rather have slick, articulate, "educated" leaders rather than one with convictions. Ill vote for convictions and steadfast beliefs over appearances and impressions every day.

What does being 'articulate, and educated' have to do with appearances and impressions? If you're 'articulate, and educated' then you're 'articulate, and educated'. End of.

stupidcorporatewhore

chiefojibwa wrote:

gosh, i must have entirely missed bill clinton sr's presidency.

exactly.tc

acutejam

Uncle Leo wrote:

...intellectually lazy--as evidenced by the fact that he doesn't read newspapers or watch news.

I could posit that people who read newspapers and watch news are intellectually lazy! But I won't....

What I will say is Bush has made his position about the media well known.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/04/25/bush_muscle.html

A reporter says to the president: is it really true you don’t read us, don’t even watch the news? Bush confirms it.

And the reporter then said: Well, how do you then know, Mr. President, what the public is thinking? And Bush, without missing a beat said: You’re making a powerful assumption, young man. You’re assuming that you represent the public. I don’t accept that.

Which is a powerful statement. And if Bush believes it (a possibility not to be dismissed) then we must credit the president with an original idea, or the germ of one. Bush’s people have developed it into a thesis:

We don’t accept that you have a check and balance function. We think that you are in the game of “Gotcha.” Oh, you’re interested in headlines, and you’re interested in conflict. You’re not interested in having a serious discussion… and exploring things.

----

So I would say, let's add, "Please describe the role of the media" to our apptitude test!

Cosmo

PaperPlates wrote:

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

So, from what I gather, you'd rather have slick, articulate, "educated" leaders rather than one with convictions. Ill vote for convictions and steadfast beliefs over appearances and impressions every day.

...
I'm just taking a wild stab here... based solely upon the words you type out here... but, I'm guessing your voting is primarily motivated by the "(R)" next to the name on the ballot. To vote for anything else would not make you a team player at best... a terrorist loving America-hater at worst.

hailhailkc

Byrnzie wrote:

What does being 'articulate, and educated' have to do with appearances and impressions? If you're 'articulate, and educated' then you're 'articulate, and educated'. End of.

Haven't you ever met or known someone who was articulate and educated...but then you came to find out that their personal life was an utter disaster zone? Bad marriage, bad finances, etc. Articulate and educated doesn't always qualify someone as the right candidate, or even as the best candidate. Just like talking slowly and having a Texas accent doesn't always mean that someone is mentally lacking either.

PaperPlates

Cosmo wrote:

...
I'm just taking a wild stab here... based solely upon the words you type out here... but, I'm guessing your voting is primarily motivated by the "(R)" next to the name on the ballot. To vote for anything else would not make you a team player at best... a terrorist loving America-hater at worst.

Unfortunately, I too like you have been more or less forced to pick the lesser of two evils, rather than "the best man".

And Im just taking a wild stab here, based soley upon the words you typed out above, that you regularly make inncorrect assumptions about people you don't understand based upon nothing but what you already had in mind from the onset. To not do so would make you a closet conservative at best, or a terrorist killing hillbyilly at worst

PaperPlates

hailhailkc wrote:

Haven't you ever met or known someone who was articulate and educated...but then you came to find out that their personal life was an utter disaster zone? Bad marriage, bad finances, etc. Articulate and educated doesn't always qualify someone as the right candidate, or even as the best candidate. Just like talking slowly and having a Texas accent doesn't always mean that someone is mentally lacking either.

What he said. Well put hhkc.

Purple Hawk

Cosmo wrote:

...
I'm just taking a wild stab here... based solely upon the words you type out here... but, I'm guessing your voting is primarily motivated by the "(R)" next to the name on the ballot. To vote for anything else would not make you a team player at best... a terrorist loving America-hater at worst.

Party Identification is the number one predictor of the vote in America. Also, strength of partisanship and political knowledge are highly (and independently) correlated. This is widely accepted in Political Science. Does your "accusation" have a more underlying point to it? or was that it?

As far as the "terrorist loving blah blah blah," you really need to give it a rest. You accuse yourself of this much more often than anyone on the right.

Jeanwah

acutejam wrote:

A reporter says to the president: is it really true you don’t read us, don’t even watch the news? Bush confirms it.

And the reporter then said: Well, how do you then know, Mr. President, what the public is thinking? And Bush, without missing a beat said: You’re making a powerful assumption, young man. You’re assuming that you represent the public. I don’t accept that.

Which is a powerful statement...So I would say, let's add, "Please describe the role of the media" to our apptitude test!

This is pretty interesting, considering that I'm convinced that the gov't actually controls the media. So, by Bush saying that he doesn't accept the reporter representing the public, he's absolutely correct. Because the public doesn't get much voice. Only the progressive mags/newspapers report the real stuff that the corporate news does not.

Purple Hawk

Jeanwah wrote:

This is pretty interesting, considering that I'm convinced that the gov't actually controls the media. So, by Bush saying that he doesn't accept the reporter representing the public, he's absolutely correct. Because the public doesn't get much voice. Only the progressive mags/newspapers report the real stuff that the corporate news does not.

You do realize that 50% of the public doesn't know which party controls the House of Rep? Christ, I can flip a coin and be as informed. These are the people that don't vote. The large majority of the other voters filter the messages that they hear: liberals read progressive magazines while conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh. The public does have a voice. Those that don't vote, don't care. And the rest of us selectively choose our news sources.

Abuskedti

Purple Hawk wrote:

You do realize that 50% of the public doesn't know which party controls the House of Rep? Christ, I can flip a coin and be as informed. These are the people that don't vote. The large majority of the other voters filter the messages that they hear: liberals read progressive magazines while conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh. The public does have a voice. Those that don't vote, don't care. And the rest of us selectively choose our news sources.

did you say that those that read Rush Limbaugh care?

Jeanwah

Purple Hawk wrote:

You do realize that 50% of the public doesn't know which party controls the House of Rep? Christ, I can flip a coin and be as informed. These are the people that don't vote. The large majority of the other voters filter the messages that they hear: liberals read progressive magazines while conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh. The public does have a voice. Those that don't vote, don't care. And the rest of us selectively choose our news sources.

It's no secret that the news sources are biased, but the gov't does control what gets on the news in general. When was the last time you've seen a U.S. soldier's casket? You haven't, because it's not allowed in the media. Against the law, controlled by the gov't. Why? Because to air caskets and personal stories of the soldiers would make the war real. What you don't see, you don't know, and that's the way the media's controlled.