Assessing Presidential Candidates: Qualifications and Competencies

  • Thread starter Kevin_Axion
  • Start date
In summary: In any case, this single religion is vastly dominant even over people identifying as non-religious. Yet, you will not hear one politician using religion to any level comparable to the US. Our politicians will barely ever appear in church where a camera would be. Because, they understand and respect personal choices.
  • #1
Kevin_Axion
913
2
I'm quite certain this man won't be elected in 2012. To me, this seemed like a joke from a comedy network, clearly not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The war on religion is clearly the most important crisis facing us today! - sarcasim
 
  • #3
Is this the one with 200,000 thumbs-down votes on youtube? Or is that another one?
 
  • #4
Internet has liberal (Obama fans) majority IMO so it's not surprising to see 200K thumbs down.

At least, he is clear about what he believes in unlike Obama.
 
  • #5
Kevin_Axion said:
I'm quite certain this man won't be elected in 2012. To me, this seemed like a joke from a comedy network, clearly not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA
What a nut! "I'll end Obama's war on religion". What? Leave religion out of politics. If you can't win based on competencies, try to win based on guaranteeing a religious takeover.

 
  • #6
Evo said:
What a nut! "I'll end Obama's war on religion". What? Leave religion out of politics. If you can't win based on competencies, try to win based on guaranteeing a religious takeover.

I don't know how you can keep religion out of the politics in a democratic nation when it carries demographics like this ...
Religions_of_the_United_States.png



This thread seems unfair to Rick Perry because it discusses only one of his agendas to judge his competency.
 
  • #7
Perry is doing this because he has sank so low in the polls that he is trying to appeal to the Evangelical vote in Iowa.

Two good points I thought a woman made on "O'Reilly Factor" were 1) What does gays serving openly in the military have to do with religion, and 2) If you believe in local control of the schools, how can you as President do anything about prayer in the schools?

I do think some of the basics of what Perry says are legitimate issues (children not allowed to mention Christmas in some schools for example), but IMO leave that to folks like Bill O'Reilly and other such people to deal with, not the President (by "deal with," I mean to bring to the public's attention and make a stink about, if enough of that is done and people complain, usually the politicians at the local levels will address it).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
R. Perry shows his stupidity by expressing his “know-it-all” certainty. I feel sure that he overestimates his own abilities and skills…just examine his outrageous and contradictory pronouncements during this campaign for president. Finally, his apparent confidence in his competence makes him unable to recognize the extremity of his own inadequacy. Surely R. Perry is a bad joke…no, an embarrassment for all Americans.
 
  • #9
CAC1001 said:
Perry is doing this because he has sank so low in the polls that he is trying to appeal to the Evangelical vote in Iowa.

Two good points I thought a woman made on "O'Reilly Factor" were 1) What does gays serving openly in the military have to do with religion, and 2) If you believe in local control of the schools, how can you as President do anything about prayer in the schools?

I do think some of the basics of what Perry says are legitimate issues (children not allowed to mention Christmas in some schools for example), but IMO leave that to folks like Bill O'Reilly and other such people to deal with, not the President (by "deal with," I mean to bring to the public's attention and make a stink about, if enough of that is done and people complain, usually the politicians at the local levels will address it).

I usually stay out of US politics but got into this thread thinking it is unfair to mock Perry for this video.

I agree his rankings are going down http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/hotline-s-presidential-power-rankings-20111107 [Broken]. I hope it is so because he is incompetent not because of distractions like this video and he showing up unprepared for a debate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
rootX said:
I don't know how you can keep religion out of the politics in a democratic nation when it carries demographics like this ...
I will take one example I know of. In France we have 70% of the population identified as Christians (roman catholic). A precise number is difficult to evaluate since we do not keep official statistics on the matter. In any case, this single religion is vastly dominant even over people identifying as non-religious. Yet, you will not hear one politician using religion to any level comparable to the US. Our politicians will barely ever appear in church where a camera would be. Because, they understand and respect personal choices.

It is one part of the US population who has a literal understanding of the bible, and quite frankly it is shameful how much influence they have. The rest of the world mocks this state of affair.
 
  • #11
humanino said:
I will take one example I know of. In France we have 70% of the population identified as Christians (roman catholic). A precise number is difficult to evaluate since we do not keep official statistics on the matter. In any case, this single religion is vastly dominant even over people identifying as non-religious. Yet, you will not hear one politician using religion to any level comparable to the US. Our politicians will barely ever appear in church where a camera would be. Because, they understand and respect personal choices.
It is one part of the US population who has a literal understanding of the bible, and quite frankly it is shameful how much influence they have. The rest of the world mocks this state of affair.

Could it be because how American Revolution[1] differs from French Revolution[http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/articles/france/causes-of-the-french-revolution/1004]? Perry also commented that religion made U.S. stronger.

Nonetheless, I should have been more careful when I made that statement.
 
  • #12
rootX said:
Could it be because how American Revolution[1] differs from French Revolution[http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/articles/france/causes-of-the-french-revolution/1004]? Perry also commented that religion made U.S. stronger.
I do not think there is a simple explanation, but I agree that it is historical and the revolution plays a major role. Whether it makes the US stronger is an interesting question actually. It probably is very efficient for pushing an agenda in the short term (yes I mean population control). In the long term, I am not sure anyone worries about long term in the US.
 
  • #13
No politicians care about the long-term in the US, unfortunately. Most politicians seem to come from the business model that only cares about the last quarter and the upcoming quarter.

The 7th generation model is lost on these jerks.
 
  • #14
it's not the exact same jacket, but it's close enough visually

http://elections.americablog.com/2011/12/perrys-jacket-in-anti-gay-ad-heath.html
 
  • #15
rootX said:
I usually stay out of US politics but got into this thread thinking it is unfair to mock Perry for this video.

I agree his rankings are going down http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/hotline-s-presidential-power-rankings-20111107 [Broken]. I hope it is so because he is incompetent not because of distractions like this video and he showing up unprepared for a debate.
The OP video, and other of his statements, show that he's a religious nutcase. Which alone would be enough to judge him incompetent to hold public office (for half the electorate anyway). But then he cemented his fate (loser) by being uprepared for national debates. How much more of an idiot can this guy present himself as?

Perry's done. As is Cain. Who's next?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
humanino said:
I will take one example I know of. In France we have 70% of the population identified as Christians (roman catholic). A precise number is difficult to evaluate since we do not keep official statistics on the matter. In any case, this single religion is vastly dominant even over people identifying as non-religious. Yet, you will not hear one politician using religion to any level comparable to the US. Our politicians will barely ever appear in church where a camera would be. Because, they understand and respect personal choices.

It is one part of the US population who has a literal understanding of the bible, and quite frankly it is shameful how much influence they have. The rest of the world mocks this state of affair.
It seems that in France there's a better realization of the separation of church and state than in the US. The world should mock US elections. They're eminently mockworthy.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
humanino said:
It is one part of the US population who has a literal understanding of the bible,

Many appear to have no understanding whatsoever of the New Testament. In my view, they use what they please of the Bible and ignore that which is inconvenient. I would say that many of their practices are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
 
  • #18
PatrickPowers said:
Many appear to have no understanding whatsoever of the New Testament. In my view, they use what they please of the Bible and ignore that which is inconvenient. I would say that many of their practices are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I agree Patrick.
I am honestly shocked that people can pick and choose their dogma. In the New Testament (matthew19-21), Jesus says to give to the poor, and similarly in mark 10:21. This is quite a socialist ideal, and to be honest that is where i think the power of christianity lies. In the US i think socialism is a dirty word, for the most part because people are so uneducated that they equate democratic socialism with stalinism/maoism. I find it abhorent that these evangelicals preach the word of this book, but also the holy creed of capitalism and each man for himself.
 
  • #20
We should have a war on Christmas, IMO. At least the over-commercialized over-hyped stuff we have these days. My parents were not very well-to-do (to put it mildly), but they made sure that each of us kids had a stocking with an apple, an orange, a pencil, and some other little "stuffer" if they could afford it. The presents were modest, and included gifts of socks, underwear, etc, but we were happy. Food and visits with relatives were treats. Actually, when I was a kid, I liked Thanksgiving better than Christmas because parts of the extended family would get together, and we'd have a feast with cousins that I rarely got to see.
 
  • #21
turbo said:
We should have a war on Christmas, IMO. At least the over-commercialized over-hyped stuff we have these days. My parents were not very well-to-do (to put it mildly), but they made sure that each of us kids had a stocking with an apple, an orange, a pencil, and some other little "stuffer" if they could afford it. The presents were modest, and included gifts of socks, underwear, etc, but we were happy. Food and visits with relatives were treats. Actually, when I was a kid, I liked Thanksgiving better than Christmas because parts of the extended family would get together, and we'd have a feast with cousins that I rarely got to see.

That's a war on Santa, not Christmas ;)
 
  • #22
rootX said:
Internet has liberal (Obama fans) majority IMO so it's not surprising to see 200K thumbs down.

At least, he is clear about what he believes in unlike Obama.

When asked if "separation of Church and State" meant anything to him, Perry said:

"Sure, but it means we're supposed to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion...
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/last_word/2011/12/rick-perry-denounces-gay-soldi.html [Broken]

Freedom of religion includes freedom from other people's religion [especially the likes of Rick Perry!].

He is clear enough to ensure that he'll never get elected for that statement alone.

He also lied about Obama. So that makes him a zealot, a hypocrite, anti-Constitution [by inference], and a liar.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Functor97 said:
I agree Patrick.
I am honestly shocked that people can pick and choose their dogma. In the New Testament (matthew19-21), Jesus says to give to the poor, and similarly in mark 10:21. This is quite a socialist ideal, and to be honest that is where i think the power of christianity lies. In the US i think socialism is a dirty word, for the most part because people are so uneducated that they equate democratic socialism with stalinism/maoism. I find it abhorent that these evangelicals preach the word of this book, but also the holy creed of capitalism and each man for himself.

Jesus says to give to the poor, not to force your neighbor at gunpoint to give to the poor. Private charity is giving to the poor. Socialism is forcing your neighbor at gunpoint to give to the poor.
 
  • #24
Walmart discussion moved to Random thoughts thread.
 
  • #25
rootX said:
Religions_of_the_United_States.png

You have to remember, these are all studies where people identify their own religion. There is a whole world of psychological pressures that affect one's answer. People don't always respond truthfully (whether consciously or subconsciously) under those pressures. Humans naturally adapt their self-image to fit situations.

Heck, I remember when I was just starting to talk, my parents told me I was Christian and I believed them. If you had asked me if I was Christian, I would have said "yes". I didn't even know who Jesus was or a single moral pillar of the religion. Sadly, there are people whose dedication in adulthood is no deeper than mine as a child.

The reason I'm bringing all this up, is that I don't think the US is as 'hardcore Christian' as that graph would suggest. There are a lot of people who identify as Christians who don't go to church, don't follow any Christian moral guidelines, and support separation of church and state.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Self-identification is a problem. If you asked my father about his religion, he'd say "Baptist" because that's the church his mother dragged him to (even though his father was Irish-Catholic). All through his life, I have never known him to step foot in a church unless he had to in order to attend a wedding, a funeral, etc. When I refused to continue to attend mass/catechism any more, we used to spend our warm-weather Sundays fishing. The great outdoors was a much better "church", anyway. Have a poor catch or even get skunked? A quiet day out on the water watching the wildlife was well worth the effort.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
In 8th grade, my public school allowed this outside company to come in and sell us Christian T-Shirts. We were allowed to select a Bible verse to have them print on a shirt, and it would cost $8 total.

I selected Ezekiel 23:20. The company actually did print the shirt, but the school was less than pleased when I wore it a week later.
 
  • #28
Kevin_Axion said:
I'm quite certain this man won't be elected in 2012. To me, this seemed like a joke from a comedy network, clearly not.

Jack21222 said:
Is this the one with 200,000 thumbs-down votes on youtube? Or is that another one?
It has 465K dislikes now, and only 11K likes.

It's amazing how he can open with "...there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military..." as if it's both a self-evident truth and a major problem. It does sound like a joke.

I would love to hear someone like Rick Perry explain why this is an issue at all.

This is how Stephen Colbert explained it a few months ago:
When you're in combat, the number one thought in your mind, as bullets are whizzing over head is "I hope the guy who just saved my ***, wasn't saving it for later".
 
  • #29
Fredrik said:
This is how Stephen Colbert explained it a few months ago:
When you're in combat, the number one thought in your mind, as bullets are whizzing over head is "I hope the guy who just saved my ***, wasn't saving it for later".
It's wonderful how a bit of humor can so economically express the absurdity of a certain position. But of course the US Christian right just doesn't get the irony. Anyway, Perry's finished. Too stupid, lazy, whatever, to properly prepare for a national debate.

The only Republican possibility who isn't an obvious lightweight (except for Paul, who's ideas are, for the most part, too extreme for moderate Americans) is Gingrich.

Somebody should start a thread on Gingrich.
 
  • #30
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a physicist, but you don't need to be in the lab every day to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can pray openly in public but our kids can't openly conduct experiments or celebrate Darwin's birthday in church.
As dog catcher, I'll end the church's war on science. And I'll fight against liberal arts attacks on our scientific heritage.
Science made America smart. It can make her smart again.
I'm Jimmy Snyder and I approve this message.

Jon Stewart said:
Thank you Jesus
 
  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/last_word/2011/12/rick-perry-denounces-gay-soldi.html [Broken]

that makes him a zealot, a hypocrite, anti-Constitution [by inference], and a liar.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Did you know that in 1968 Frank Zappa predicted the election of Reagan as President via modern marketing techniques?
 
  • #33
Jimmy Snyder said:
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a physicist, but you don't need to be in the lab every day to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can pray openly in public but our kids can't openly conduct experiments or celebrate Darwin's birthday in church.
As dog catcher, I'll end the church's war on science. And I'll fight against liberal arts attacks on our scientific heritage.
Science made America smart. It can make her smart again.
I'm Jimmy Snyder and I approve this message.
:smile: Obviously another science fundamentalist nutcase. Since when does intelligence have to do with ... anything?!?

And why are the liberal arts called the liberal arts. They seem pretty conservative to me.

What's up with this Darwin stuff? Why are homos called gays?

Rick Perry ... buwahahahahaha.
 
  • #34
Thanks for posting Kevin! I was looking for this one last night.

For those who aspire to become powerful through political influence, it often becomes impossible to prevent their feet from finding their way into their mouth.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Q_Goest said:
For those who aspire to become powerful through political influence, it often becomes impossible to prevent their feet from finding their way into their mouth.
It's tough to find an honest politician. There was an article yesterday (on Yahoo?HuffPost?GoogleNews?) about how politicians never lie. They might exaggerate, prevaricate, be "factually challenged" or be prone to selectively omit pertinent facts, etc, but they never lie. The article was written after analysis of pieces in the "liberal media" in which politicians were never called "liars" even after being caught telling whoppers.

I'll see if I can find that link again.
 
<h2>1. What qualifications are necessary for a presidential candidate?</h2><p>The qualifications for a presidential candidate are outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. They include being a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.</p><h2>2. Are there any specific competencies that a presidential candidate should possess?</h2><p>While there are no specific competencies outlined in the Constitution, many believe that a successful presidential candidate should possess strong leadership skills, effective communication abilities, and a deep understanding of domestic and foreign policy issues.</p><h2>3. How are presidential candidates assessed during the election process?</h2><p>Presidential candidates are typically assessed through a combination of debates, speeches, interviews, and campaign events. Voters also have the opportunity to research the candidates' backgrounds, policies, and past experiences to make an informed decision.</p><h2>4. Can a presidential candidate be disqualified for not meeting certain qualifications?</h2><p>Yes, a presidential candidate can be disqualified if they do not meet the qualifications outlined in the Constitution. However, this is typically determined before the candidate is officially on the ballot, as the party's nomination process usually involves vetting potential candidates.</p><h2>5. Are there any non-traditional qualifications that may be beneficial for a presidential candidate?</h2><p>Some argue that non-traditional qualifications, such as prior experience in government or military service, can be beneficial for a presidential candidate. However, this is not a requirement and ultimately, it is up to the voters to decide what they believe makes a candidate qualified for the role.</p>

1. What qualifications are necessary for a presidential candidate?

The qualifications for a presidential candidate are outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. They include being a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

2. Are there any specific competencies that a presidential candidate should possess?

While there are no specific competencies outlined in the Constitution, many believe that a successful presidential candidate should possess strong leadership skills, effective communication abilities, and a deep understanding of domestic and foreign policy issues.

3. How are presidential candidates assessed during the election process?

Presidential candidates are typically assessed through a combination of debates, speeches, interviews, and campaign events. Voters also have the opportunity to research the candidates' backgrounds, policies, and past experiences to make an informed decision.

4. Can a presidential candidate be disqualified for not meeting certain qualifications?

Yes, a presidential candidate can be disqualified if they do not meet the qualifications outlined in the Constitution. However, this is typically determined before the candidate is officially on the ballot, as the party's nomination process usually involves vetting potential candidates.

5. Are there any non-traditional qualifications that may be beneficial for a presidential candidate?

Some argue that non-traditional qualifications, such as prior experience in government or military service, can be beneficial for a presidential candidate. However, this is not a requirement and ultimately, it is up to the voters to decide what they believe makes a candidate qualified for the role.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Sticky
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
1
Views
821
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
524
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
7
Views
984
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
644
Replies
5
Views
825
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
468
Back
Top