i'd be in favor of an amendment requiring 4 years in a public service role to qualify for being president
Surely there's another layer? Explicitly this seems like an attempt to screen future Trumps, my sense is Trump's badness overidentified...
-
-
I'm thinking Zuck & The Rock. Though Trump does show that there's clearly domain-relevant gov experience that matters.
-
If some rich dude can't take four years out of his life to be a governor or whatever, he doesn't care enough about pub service to be prez
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
. . . so maybe some other screen would be better, with fewer potential downsides
-
But if the goal is to ensure that the prez has experience in govt specifically, what other screen could there be?
-
I'm not trying to screen for, eg, prez with policies I like. Just one that knows inner workings of DC first-hand
-
That would screen out governors tho
-
Inner workings of how government functions, I should have said.
-
Seems we could discuss a large number of restrictions that would plausibly improve candidate pool, but why not just let the market decide?
-
Because a big part of the political market is the construction of the choice set before the market gets a say, and also...
-
some aspects of market manipulation (ie advertising and isn't-this-unusual coverage) favor this particular segment of underqualified peeps
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.