To: DesertRhino
The silly idea that a president should be part scientist, or this deep genius (such as what they claim Obama is) is predicated on the horrifyingly bad idea that we should be a centrally planned society. A society that is centrally planned of course needs such a person.
When I took the test above, it wasn't with the idea that our president needs to finish with a high score on such a test. The topics covered in this test were highly scientific, and didn't really involve anything that a president would have to know, or that your every day individual would need to know to function at top performance. I didn't touch on that because I thought this was pretty much a given, and I didn't want to put down the idea it would be interesting to take the test and see how well we would do. It was fun, even if I did miserably on it.
In an American society, the people who decide the course of their lives should be the educated ones. Thats us. A president only need be deeply honest, moral in his dealings, and dedicated to following a simple set of instructions. (the constitution)
I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure you're 100% spot on here.
I doubt you want your Conservative president operating by the latest Republican public opinion poll. He needs to be a Conservative in his core. He needs to be up to speed so he can instinctively know how to react to Leftists, and Leftist efforts. He needs to be up to speed on international matters, and be able to react in minutes if a military threat is detected. He needs to be able to develop and manage a team effectively. He needs to be tried and tested. We need to know that if the S hits the fan, he has at least had some moderate to heavy pressure brought to bare before being president. How did he react to it? I think that's important.
John McCain wasn't this man. George Bush wasn't this man. Bob Dole wasn't this man.
McCain was a Kennedy, Kerry, Feingold, Soros, glad-hander. He wasn't even close to being qualified to be president.
You see, he should have known better than to chum it up with the likes of these people. And some of our brightest stars should have known better than to get too deep with him.
When someone cozies it up with him, they're telling me they don't quite grasp Conservatism in their core. When they advocate for registering illegals so they can stay here and work, it tells me they don't get the brand of Conservatism that most of us have at our core. Look, it's no my fault they don't, but that's not my problem. I observe. I come to conclusions.
48 posted on
07/30/2012 1:26:18 AM PDT by
DoughtyOne
(Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
To: DoughtyOne
When they advocate for registering illegals so they can stay here and work, it tells me they don't get the brand of Conservatism that most of us have at our core. Look, it's no my fault they don't, but that's not my problem. I observe. I come to conclusions. Look, the trouble is that were not going to elect YOU to be president. So we all have to settle for someone who is good enough. If we make better the enemy of good enough, we end up with a Romney candidacy or a McCain candidacy. And a Clinton or Obama presidency. Thats the thing about these elections; in the end Democrats arent ever going to compete for your vote, or mine. We really need a candidate who can win, and who wont act as if the economy were his own personal infinite source of revenue. That was my rationale back in January, 2011 when I adopted DRAFT PALIN as my tagline. And history has certainly vindicated that decision in my mind. There were all sorts of people in the Republican field, but nobody who was really good in all dimensions. Palin would have been better than any of the others, and I admit she has some things I wouldnt specify in the ideal candidate. But she struck me as good enough, in that field, and IMHO electable if ANY Republican is electable. Always assuming that she could raise the $$$$. I for one would have contributed much more than I ever did for any prior candidate.
But, not even FReepers could agree, as your postings here amply illustrate. But precisely WHO was your candidate??? They all crashed and burned - and Palin never even entered the lists. The results were precisely what the George Stephanopolises of the world wanted - plenty of internal damage to the Republican Party, and a nominee who is not a conservative leader. In retrospect - and even in prospect, I might add, conservative leaders shouldnt participate in debates which are actually press interrogations designed to embarrass them. We should have drafted Palin into the primaries, and she should have run a campaign which did not include debates intended to embarrass her. And just let the chips fall where they may. I honestly dont see how we could have done worse than we did.
As regards the need for a president with a scientific background, maybe we should nominate Michael Mann. </sarcasm>
53 posted on
07/30/2012 2:21:37 AM PDT by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson