3 ms·

Who will not have even served out her term when she runs for president. These are the type of people we feel are well qualified to run the most powerful, large

Who will not have even served out her term when she runs for president. These are the type of people we feel are well qualified to run the most powerful, largest, and most expensive institution in human history?

tomrod 9y ago
Of course. The people that would elect them are decidedly and unabashedly anti-technorati. It is a good thing we have the bureaucrat firewall in place, frustrating though it is.
tclancy 9y ago
How is someone who is a US senator exactly similar to Oprah? Nixon was in Congress for 6 years and VP for 8. Was that not enough or too much? And the idea Obama was less prepared that George W. Bush seems hard to swallow.
dustingetz 9y ago
Interestingly, from a game theory perspective, the purpose of leadership is to coordinate people, and charisma is absolutely a valid way to accomplish that. From game theory it doesn't actually matter very much how the coordination is arrived at, just that it happens, check out http://www.dustingetz.com/:myerson http://www.dustingetz.com/:myerson c-f "charisma"
r00fus 9y ago
Look, you can take issue with Harris's positions, but before she was Senator she was CA's Attorney General before that. Not exactly inexperienced.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Who will not have even served out her term when she runs for president. So, she’ll have a couple fewer years in the Senate and a lot more in elected executive positions than Kennedy when he was elected President. > These are the type of people we feel are well qualified to run the most powerful, largest, and most expensive institution in human history? Harris isn't necessarily my first choice, but she's certainly qualified; Oprah and Zuck are unqualified, though less so than the current incumbent (which, admittedly, is a low bar to clear.)
CPLX 9y ago
In short, yes. I think a sitting US Senator has met the basic credibility and resume qualifications to be a US President, and is not accurately described as a "celebrity" candidate.

tomrod 9y ago

Of course. The people that would elect them are decidedly and unabashedly anti-technorati. It is a good thing we have the bureaucrat firewall in place, frustrating though it is.

tclancy 9y ago

How is someone who is a US senator exactly similar to Oprah? Nixon was in Congress for 6 years and VP for 8. Was that not enough or too much? And the idea Obama was less prepared that George W. Bush seems hard to swallow.

dustingetz 9y ago

Interestingly, from a game theory perspective, the purpose of leadership is to coordinate people, and charisma is absolutely a valid way to accomplish that. From game theory it doesn't actually matter very much how the coordination is arrived at, just that it happens, check out http://www.dustingetz.com/:myerson http://www.dustingetz.com/:myerson c-f "charisma"

r00fus 9y ago

Look, you can take issue with Harris's positions, but before she was Senator she was CA's Attorney General before that. Not exactly inexperienced.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Who will not have even served out her term when she runs for president. So, she’ll have a couple fewer years in the Senate and a lot more in elected executive positions than Kennedy when he was elected President. > These are the type of people we feel are well qualified to run the most powerful, largest, and most expensive institution in human history? Harris isn't necessarily my first choice, but she's certainly qualified; Oprah and Zuck are unqualified, though less so than the current incumbent (which, admittedly, is a low bar to clear.)

CPLX 9y ago

In short, yes. I think a sitting US Senator has met the basic credibility and resume qualifications to be a US President, and is not accurately described as a "celebrity" candidate.