The last qualified President Americans elected into office was George H.W. Bush

Part of the problem lies with that fact that in the 2016 election both major parties nominated the two worst candidates possible. Nearly any other candidate in both parties would have been acceptable except the two that were nominated.

That is only part of the answer. That doesn't explain Obama who was equally divisive. Race wasn't an issue in the beginning of his administration. He made it an issue. This is what happens when a junior Senator with all of three years experience in Washington is made President.

Then we can talk about Bush, the most controversial President since Nixon, responsible for two horrible wars that reflected his extremely poor leadership. He was led around by the nose by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz and fell victim to the questionable goals of the neoconservatives and their PNAC.

Then there was the war-loving Clinton who nearly was impeached because he couldn't keep his hose pocketed.

All four of these Presidents (yes, I include Trump) showed poor leadership, another Presidential quality equally as important as diplomacy, but why did they exhibit poor leadership? In a word, experience, meaning the lack thereof. Some Americans have this really weird idea that the person we elect for the highest office in the land should have little or no experience so that he will shake things up. The result of that weird thinking are the four Presidencies I described.

The last qualified President Americans elected into office was George H.W. Bush in 1988, and we voted him out of office in 1992 in favor of Clinton.

We get the President we deserve. This is especially true of Trump.

 

When will we stop electing Presidents with little or no experience?

 

Unreal. What are they putting in the water where you live?

This War Criminal sent his minions to the congress to lie to them in front of the American People. Don't you remember lies about Mustard, Sarin, Botulinum Toxin, Anthrax and Aluminum Tubes from Africa?

Unreal

​

This War Criminal started it all:

​

 

No experience really corresponds to being President. No other job is nearly that encompassing except VP to a small degree. 2 party rule is bad enough, I dont know anyone that would want 1 party rule.

Just looking at his resume on paper, Trump shows most of the qualifications you would want outside of military experience. He headed a large multi national business. He's spent decades dealing with political considerations of all possible persuasions. He doesnt even have any known bad habits like smoking or excessive drinking.

Obviously, theres more to someone than a resume and the rest of Trump isnt nearly so defendable.

Most of the same can be said of Bill Clinton. Where Trump developed his relationships in business, Clinton developed his in politics. The big difference is that Clinton was a lot more likable.

Obama was a paper thin candidate. He was immensely well spoken and charismatic. Outside of that, he had nothing going for him. No political experience. No life experience. He really was a speech writer and teleprompter.

 

I don't disagree with this.

But I don't necessarily agree with it in totality either.

The thing is experience or diversified background has NOT proven to be the key to a successful president either?

Aside from George H.W. Bush, who was the most qualified Republican president?

Arguably Nixon. High academic performance. World War Two service. House of Representatives. Senator. Vice President. Successful in the Bond market.

Yet I think we'll agree his presidency wasn't altogether successful.

Or Herbert Hoover. Arguably incredibly successful in everything in life he attempted and there was a wide variety of things he did.

Yet I think we'll agree his presidency wasn't altogether successful.

Who was the most experienced president of the 19th century?

Probably James Buchanan. Disastrous as president.

Yet let's look at two of the more successful presidents of the 20th century. One Democrat, One Republican.

Democrat Harry Truman-a Missouri senator who prior to ing becoming VP was mainly an unknown errand boy for a corrupt midwestern political machine.

Republican Dwight Eisenhower- famous for coordinating the war effort in the European theatre in World War Two. But had no political background whatsoever. Extremely politically naive. Even voiced the idea that he might receive the nominations from both parties.

Overall I think most will agree that Truman and Ike did pretty well in office.

 

You are somewhat confused. The first video had to do with the administration of George W. Bush, not George H.W. Bush.

I don't see your point with the second video. Can you explain? What did you mean, "The war criminal started it all?"

 

Experience in Washington is invaluable. Experience in politics is invaluable. Experience as the governor of a state is invaluable, which explains why, of the four mentioned Presidents, Clinton was, by far, the most successful. His biggest problem was his sexual interests, not governance. Trump has none of these experiences.

Being the owner of a large business empire does not prepare one for the Presidency. We can all see that. Why is that? Being the owner of a business empire means people underneath you listen to what you say, do as they are told, or they are dismissed. In addition, as the owner, you are the ultimate expert of the enterprise.

Being the President means you have to pay attention to many people, Senators, representatives, members of your staff including the cabinet, and reporters, some of them unfriendly. You can't do what you want anymore; like hop in a car to go to a movie. If any of the people mentioned say things you don't like, you can't fire them with the exception of your own staff. And, most important, you are not the expert of all things as it relates to the Presidency. If a President is well-qualified, he might know something about around 10 to 20% of his responsibilities. For all the rest, he must rely on his advisors and staff.

Unlike running a business empire, he is no longer the boss. The legislative and judicial branches of government are equals. He can't boss them around as Trump is quickly finding out. Then are the reporters who ask all those painful questions he can't answer. He can't fire them, either. Ultimately, the people are the boss. If we don't like the job he is doing, we can fire him in 2020. If we think, through our representatives in Congress, that he broke the law, we can fire him sooner than that.

Yes, at first glance, the owner of a business empire would make a fine President. The truth is, for reasons stated above, that is not the case. We are seeing the proof of that unfolding before our eyes.

Equally important, a good President must like his job to be effective. There are numerous indicators that Trump is not enjoying his job as President.

 

I agree with all of this except that maybe a more corporate business would be a better place to start than a family owned business like Trumps. As you said, he was the boss and he had no one to answer to. I think that is the biggest issue Trump is having now, dealing with having to answer for his actions.

 

I seem to be in agreement with you. All I can say in defense of my OP is, for every rule there is an exception. Also, I never said, experience was a guarantee of success.

I think readers can benefit from both our posts. At the very least, we can ask them to stop and think.

 

I don't believe that a lot of political experience is a requirement for a good President. However I do think that zero experience isn't enough.

Lincoln had only 2 years in the House of Representatives and several years in the Illinois legislature for political experience..

Obama had 4 year in the Senate and several years in the Illinois legislature.

While I would never rate Obama as close to Lincoln's greatness he was for the most part a successful President.

 

"I think that is the biggest issue Trump is having now, dealing with having to answer for his actions." You nailed it. But he had to know that would happen. He has been close to politics all his adult life. I am wondering why he ran.

The lesson for the American voter: Based on the OP, we have to stop electing Presidents with no experience. That has proven to be a disaster regardless of party. In fact, there is equality. Two of the poor Presidents mentioned are Democrats. Two are Republicans.

 

Bush the Senior was not connected to real people in any manner.
Not knowing the price of milk was classic.

Moi

r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

Donald Trump benefited (and still benefits) from a persistent American fantasy of "running the government like a business" and "the successful businessman who can get things done".

This fantasy is equal to the great American one of the "magical third party candidate that will step forward and solve all out problems";

But you can't run the American federal government like a business. Not even close to it. And lack of profits isn't even among the major reasons.

 

In my view, Obama spawned the divisions in our country that resulted in the election of 2016 and the Trump Presidency. Those divisions still exist. This forum is a microcosm of American society today. At times, there is a lot of anger. I know that first hand, and I am not completely innocent.

 

What about integrity and moral conviction?

 

And that means nothing. There are millions of American men and women who couldn't tell you the price of milk (and other basics). I'm a school teacher in a poor state and I don't . My wife does the grocery shopping and she couldn't either. She needs milk she puts a gallon of it in her shopping cart and once she has everything she needs she heads to the checkout.

 

I still do not understand how Ole Man Bush never went to prison.

Even the Nazis, as disgusting as they were, respected diplomatic immunity - a basic need of civilization - there were cases of Jews being saved by diplomats.
Then, we have Iran and Msulim wackos take our embassy hostage, and what does Bush do? MAKES A DEAL AND SELLS THEM WEAPONS.
Yes, "Saint" Reagan was in on it, too, but by then his dementia was such that when Ronnie said, "I don't remember" he may well have been telling the truth.
Pappy Bush, however lied over and over and over and denied he knew or had anything to to do with it - until proof came out - AND NOTHING HAPPENED.
HOW IS TREASON ALLOWED TO GO BY?????
One of the most disgusting things in our history. Pappy Bush is a criminal.

 

Is that how you measure a President? Whether or not he knows the price of milk? I don't know the price of milk. My wife does the shopping.

Ditch the stupid attachment.

 

This is scary. We are beginning to think alike.

 

You need to learn the definition of treason (as to most people here) before throwing that term around.

A bigger thing is this:

1) Reagan's "dottering old grandpa" who didn't know what was going on was pretty much just an act. Reagan campaign adviser John Sears IIRC came up with it in the late 1970s after polling suggested that many people identified Reagan with militarism and desire for war and were afraid of him.

2) Reagan was thus in full command of his administration right up to the end.

3) Reagan and Bush (and Nancy and Barbara) did not get along for many years of his administration, so the widespread belief in Washington D.C. was that Vice President Bush was "not in the loop" for much of the Reagan Admin.

 

About the only thing lower done in my lifetime than selling arms to Iran was under Nixon, with Kent State - I regret to say I fully expect the so-called president to set a new low.
Reagan lost it well before they admitted he had.
And, BTW - Trump is OLDER.

 

There is no evidence of that. One son says he did. One son says he didn't.

And I don't recall Nixon ordering the National Guard to fire on students at Kent State.

 

What is interesting is that they tried the "price of milk & eggs" gotcha question during the Republican primaries in 1996 during a debate IIRC.

Guess who was the only Republican candidate who could answer the question?

Steve Forbes, who had a 700-800 million fortune that he inherited in part from his father Malcolm Forbes.

Steve Forbes was able to answer it because it turned out that he did most of the grocery shopping for his family. Despite being a near billionaire.

 

The President is suppose to execute the laws that are passed or already on the books. I blame the people of the United States who have abandoned their role to vote, contact their representatives on issues or not be informed on issues. I blame the Congress and House of Representatives for letting the past Presidents usurp their authority because they did not have the courage to vote on the hard issues. I blame the activist judges who have turned a blind eye to the Constitution and are trying to make law with their decisions. I blame the 4th estate who have abandoned their duty to present the news with the facts and now believe political opinion is the news.

Nothing gets done, even if it benefits all, because the laws that we have all allowed has dedicated funds to mandatory entitlement programs. Add to that the interest we have to pay on the debt, money for defense and operations and their really is no money for anything extra.

Just look at what is going on in the country right now. The people want government funded heath care but there is no money to sustain the system we have now. The younger generation want free college education and their parents want education debt forgiveness. There is no money available for this. The hawks want more money for defense but the only way this may come around is making other countries help with the costs of us defending them. The greens want more money to fund projects in this country and abroad for renewable energy and yet at what cost to jobs in America? The list can go on and on. The frustration is exasperating at times and yet you would think the worlds biggest problem was how did Hillary lose the election. We do get the government we deserve.

 

I agree with you about very little, but I do agree whole-heartedly with you about that.