- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
- TrueAnon@lemmy.today
- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
- TrueAnon@lemmy.today
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/47029629
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/47029625
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/47029629
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/47029625
You shouldn’t get multiple attempts at important jobs
There are around 100 million people who are eligible to be president of the United States. Of them, there are only six who have demonstrably proven they are incapable of winning a presidential election.
You have significantly better odds of success if you select a random person through a lottery than allowing any of those six people to run again. They are the only people who have proven they can’t do it. A failed presidential candidate is by definition the least qualified person on earth to be president.
I am more qualified for this job than she is. You are more qualified than she is. 100 million people are more qualified than she is.
This also goes for other big positions, like CEOs of major companies and University Presidents. You get one. If you’re a CEO and good at it, there’s no reason for you to leave the company you’re at. If you’re bad at it, no one should ever allow you anywhere near that seat again because anyone else has a better chance of doing it well.
I think you should get multiple attempts, but you need to be able to establish that you are more qualified than the last time you applied, and Kamala has basically done the opposite by blaming everyone but herself for her failure, which negates the possibility of improvement and itself is another serious detriment to her qualification.
I see little reason why you should get multiple attempts. When your pool of potential candidates is 100 million people, there’s very little “improvement” that could be done that would bring you up like, more than a standard deviation in ability. And if there is, you should do that improvement before becoming the major party nominee for president.
Kamala is honestly the most extreme example, she shouldn’t just not be running for president, she should be in prison, both for the numerous war crimes she’s complicit in and for her failure to abide by the 25th amendment and remove an ailing president.
I certainly agree with the second part, but I think there’s a ton of things one can do to improve pretty drastically, mostly having to do with education.
Certainly. But you should do that before becoming a major party’s nominee for president
I think you should get killed if you lose an election.
Would self select out a lot of these fucks
I personally think that that would not be a good policy. Punitive killing isn’t a good way of running basically anything.
I think there’s some way to stop people grabbing power out of a self serving motivation.
The chief thing to do is make it not represent power. Modest pay, anti-corruption laws, recall elections, the ability to actually be held liable for crimes . . .
I don’t think that works.
I promise you that it’s a much better means of keeping political representatives under control than literally executing people who try and fail to be elected.
I genuinely don’t know. Real talk instead of being glib.
How do you design a political power that does not attract those who seek power selfishly?
But how many of those 100 million are a kind of awkward trainwreck monster, devoted enough to making line go up, to lead millions into the jaws of death without hesitation or remorse?