Should there be a Separation of Entertainment and State policy?

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at Brian. Are you suggesting that a law be made saying that someone who was or is in some way connected to the entertainment industry not be allowed to run for president? Because that doesn't seem very American to me. I don't see any problem with someone having so much ambition that they want to be a movie star AND the POTUS (or vice versa.... I'm still waiting for that to happen, lol). Frankly, I have absolutely no problem with entertainers becoming POTUS, under the assumption that the people who vote are able to decide who they want leading them.
(also, I think people are taking shit like Kanye West and Lindsay Lohan running for president WAY too seriously in any case. If either one of them actually made the attempt it would bring some levity to an otherwise unpleasant process. I think that shit like that actually gets Americans more engaged in the election, and that couldn't be a bad thing, no matter how silly it looks).
In the end, I think the world is entirely too serious already; we don't need to put a concerted effort into making it even more so. I find suggestions like maybe politicians shouldn't be on the Tonight Show, etc a little disturbing. What is wrong with leaders connecting with the people???? I think that is a very positive thing, and so is a leader showing folks that they have a sense of humour, and softer side, and fun side. I think that's the kind of thing needed to engage the population, and there is nothing wrong with that. Humans aren't buttoned up robots. What I find more disturbing is a bunch of stiff suits marching around acting like they are "above it all" as they lead a country full of people they can't relate to. Actually, I find that somewhat terrifying. I'm not saying that I think Joe the Plumber should be a world leader. I don't think that the POTUS should just be an average person because we should expect more than average from our leaders. But being great isn't synonymous with being detached from the people.

Interesting comments here, PJ_S. Thanks!

Are you suggesting that a law be made saying that someone who was or is in some way connected to the entertainment industry not be allowed to run for president?

Definitely NOT! Imagine the tax dollars that would be wasted!

I have absolutely no problem with entertainers becoming POTUS, under the assumption that the people who vote are able to decide who they want leading them.

We should have that right but do we really want this? I don't think the average American understands how government works (or should work). The average American is looking for a personality, not a leader, thus my suggestion that we have a separate category for Drama King and Drama King. Let everybody including kids vote for those positions and make it so that anyone voting for the real president, congressperson etc. must first demonstrate a basic knowledge of government in order to be able to vote. (I'll probably get stoned for saying that!)

I think the world is entirely too serious already; we don't need to put a concerted effort into making it even more so.

I absolutely agree. I see nothing wrong with being a bit manic depressive that way. Take serious shit seriously as hell and the rest of the time have a jolly good time!


But being great isn't synonymous with being detached from the people.

Andrew Bacevich once generally implied that the average American isn't smart enough to know how leadership should work and I agree. Give the people a King and Queen (or whatever you want to call it) to represent them in a grand fashion. Let them be glamorous, sing like angels or rock like the Devil and leave leadership to serious, intelligent concerned leaders and if those leaders be somewhat detached from the masses, so be it as long as they do a good job, are accountable and are impeachable.

I'm totally serious about all of this. But will my message be heard? Haha! Nope!

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

mickeyrat said:

dankind said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.

Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.

dankind said:

mickeyrat said:

dankind said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.

Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.

Why the hell would we do that?

As long as we are free, military service always should be (and always should have been) voluntary.

Since it looks like I'll sit out the presidential election for the third time in a row, it doesn't much matter how I vote, but when I vote, I do consider whether the candidate has any military experience.

PJ_Soul said:

As for the president having military training and people being killed by friendly fire.... What does one have to do with the other?? The POTUS has no direct role in incidents like that. It's not like the POTUS is sitting there directing day to day military operations. I'm a bit stunned that so many of you think this is a reasonable requirement this day and age. I don't even want to think about how many incredible potential Presidents would become ineligible if this were a requirement. Imagine telling a kid who says "when I grow up I want to be the President of the USA!" that he should stop even dreaming about it unless he wants to join up with the military and and all that entails... And that further thin out the field by having some of those potentials die either in training (happens a LOT) or during battle. It's hard enough finding people who are actually appropriate for the job. This kind of major restriction would make it next to impossible now that those who were drafted are getting too old to be considered.

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

As for the president having military training and people being killed by friendly fire.... What does one have to do with the other?? The POTUS has no direct role in incidents like that. It's not like the POTUS is sitting there directing day to day military operations. I'm a bit stunned that so many of you think this is a reasonable requirement this day and age. I don't even want to think about how many incredible potential Presidents would become ineligible if this were a requirement. Imagine telling a kid who says "when I grow up I want to be the President of the USA!" that he should stop even dreaming about it unless he wants to join up with the military and and all that entails... And that further thin out the field by having some of those potentials die either in training (happens a LOT) or during battle. It's hard enough finding people who are actually appropriate for the job. This kind of major restriction would make it next to impossible now that those who were drafted are getting too old to be considered.

A president with experience in strategic military operations might take a more direct role (although the president does play a more direct role than you think he does) and question some of these specific targets.

And so far, it's only one and a half of us. I do think it's a reasonable consideration, not a requirement. That's crazy town! Look at our last three presidents. Obviously, "so many of" us don't give two shits about military service.

Haha, okay, I may have overreacted about how many people are saying this. I am glad to see you didn't mean it should be an actual requirement as was originally suggested. That is the part that I thought is insane (and what I thought you were agreeing with). Sure, a military past is something to consider just like anything else. So is their education. Their business experience. Their personality. Their personal life. Their criminal history. Their work record. Their past cocaine addictions (whoops.... seems people don't mind that one).... There is a HUGE list of things to consider, and no candidate will ever have everything under his own belt, and doesn't need to. As for military experience... it sure as fuck didn't help Bush, did it (if that's what you want to call whatever the fuck he did for the military... go AWOL, was it??).

mickeyrat said:

dankind said:

mickeyrat said:

dankind said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.

Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.

Why the hell would we do that?

As long as we are free, military service always should be (and always should have been) voluntary.

Since it looks like I'll sit out the presidential election for the third time in a row, it doesn't much matter how I vote, but when I vote, I do consider whether the candidate has any military experience.

I think we would hear less of the drumbeat for war and armed conflict that way from congress and other quarters.