Could there be a general consensus...

[MrScorpio]

...That the world's best car mechanic or the world's smartest chess master could be a credible enough candidate for President of these United States, solely on the basis of their individual accomplishments and complete lack of government involvement?

If not, then why are a cartoonishly pandering retired brain surgeon, an egotistical real estate mogul with the vocabulary of a Dick and Jane book and a blatant example of failed modern business school philosophy regarded, in any way possible, as "legitimate" candidates?

It's like the most obvious question that no so-called credible media employee or serious politician wants to answer.

It's sheer madness.

The fucking emperor has no fucking clothes, everybody.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. For me it depends on WHY they are the world's best 'X'.

If they're an idiot savant, then no, I don't think they'd make a good President.

If on the other hand, they're just incredibly smart and good at problem solving, and just happen to have gone into field 'X' as a career, then I don't see any reason they couldn't be an effective President, especially if they put in some study time on the subjects at hand.

I certainly don't think that only career politicians are the best possible candidates, especially since so many have made a career of performing badly in office.

[MrScorpio]

6. I believe that temperament is a necessity for public office

Even more so than book learning and problem solving.

I don't think that politics and diplomacy are puzzles to be solved.

Remember the last schemer and plotter we had as president... Nixon his damn self?

You're right, a politician isn't always the best choice, but I don't consider them improper choices as well.

I want someone as Prez who has at least an inkling of what the job calls for. None of the non-pols have given us a clue that they'd know what to do or how to do it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. Nixon was a sleaze, but he got us the EPA, Clean Air and Water, and was talking about

universal income as well, as I recall.

As godawful as he was, he's still heads above many more recent politicians.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. The US Constitution does not mention best or worst at anythng as qualifications for the office.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The best or worst chess mater, car mechanic, brain surgeon, egotistical real-estate mogul with the vocabulary of a Dick and Jane book and a blatant example of failed modern business school philosophy meet the above qualifications for office

What citizens voters are supposed to do is decide who among all the applicants will best represent us in the office.

[Sherman A1]

3. Precisely

[MrScorpio]

4. I didn't say eligible, I said credible...

As in being considered mentally, emotionally fit enough or knowledgeable enough about the function of government and international diplomacy to sit in the Oval Office.

Anyone who meets the eligibility is not automatically credible. The definitions for credible in their cases are out of wack, right? Who in their right mind could possibly think that any of them could function as President without creating a national disaster?

What's so fucked up about politics in this country to let such a travesty happen?

I suspect that perhaps none of these people actually think of themselves as even able to get elected in the first place.

Perhaps they're using the national public spotlight for their own brand name enrichment. Yep, bluffing it.

How fucked would we all be if we called their bluff and sent one of them to the White House?

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Credible - able to be believed; convincing. or

capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful.

Trump and all the others have convinced a lot of people that they are credible. (Not on this board, but out in the real world, they are considered credible.)

It is not my job to decided who is a credible candidate.

I think they will make a lousy representative for my interests as President.

[MrScorpio]

7. Then you'd agree that there's a breakdown somewhere in the consensus of their credibility, right?

People should know better.

Unless of course, we're dealing with a general failure of our collective civic consciousness.

Or as a nation, we've simply dumbed ourselves down to a point where too many people have failed to recognize what kind of person should be elected.

Or perhaps we're dealing with a massive collapse in faith in our system of government and the electorate has determined that it's not worth sending people who can do a good job of running things into public office.

What signs are we looking at here?

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. No, I think they have a consensus of their supporters to be considered credible.

I do not think they will make a good representive. I don't speak for others.

[LanternWaste]

8. I think the relevant definition this context would be...

I think the relevant definition this context would be, 'worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy'

Hence, I think it's every voters job to decide who is or is not a credible candidate.

[MrScorpio]

10. That's correct

I'm merely challenging the established parameters of what's classified as generally credible.

Somehow, we've allowed clowns to compete as serious candidates in the arena.

[KamaAina]

9. Bobby Fischer would have made a terrific President!