Governors Only Need Apply

[presonorek]

Would you support a constitutional amendment that required a presidential candidate to have at least four years service as a governor of one of the 50 states?

This would weed out a lot of hyperbole and mass hysteria. The debates could be based on accomplishments, failed policies, and successful policies. This would also be a win for fiscal conservatives since states don’t have unlimited access to debt like the federal government does. Most states even have a balanced budget amendment. These habits wouldn’t prevent runaway spending or deficit spending but would gives us an executive that has inclinations to make sound financial decisions that they were discipled in to practicing as a governor especially in those states with balanced budget requirements. Bill Clinton campaigned that he had a balanced budget every year he was governor of Arkansas. That was nothing to brag about because Arkansas law required a balanced budget. However Clinton will go down in history as the most fiscally conservative president since Calvin Coolidge. Say what you will but numbers don’t lie. I’d love for all future presidents to be former governors but the American people are suckers for shiny things like an one term charismatic young senator or a provocative businessman that never even served as a city councilman or even an enlisted service member in the military. I just wish presidential elections were as boring as Ben Stein giving a detailed 6 hour analysis of safety practices of blanket usage. That’s the America I envision .

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No

 

[presonorek]

No

Anybody 35 years old or older with a birth certificate can run for president and win. I think we have enough people in our country today that we can increase the standards at least some.

 

[Polishprince]

Sounds stupid. Such a law would disqualify anyone from the District of Columbia from becoming President. Further, if a state were to decide to have commissioners or supervisors instead of a governor rule their realms, this would put their citizens at a tremendous disadvantage.

Lastly, such a law would ensure that the only Presidents we would ever have would be long term members of the Deep State, making change impossible

 

[presonorek]

making change impossible

So individuals and businesses would be more eager to plan their futures because of predictability? It isn’t bad policies that make people reluctant to invest, it is unpredictability. You aren’t making it sound bad.

 

[Michael1985]

Read the article :

Whether You Buy an EV or Not, You'll Still Pay for It, Study Says​

The true cost of EVs is masked by a litany of subsidies, transfers, and other expenses that are passed on to Americans who don’t own EVs, the report states.

So MR Transparent and Bidenomics and "I'm working for you"
not only
Subsidized production of EVs
Subsidized purchase of EVs
Is legally closing all competition

And while the whole damn thing tanks (just like offshore windmills and other assshole ideas) guess who is paying tens of thousands per person !!!

Whether You Buy an EV or Not, You'll Still Pay for It, Study Says​

The true cost of EVs is masked by a litany of subsidies, transfers, and other expenses that are passed on to Americans who don’t own EVs, the report states.

Whether You Buy an EV or Not, You'll Still Pay for It, Study Says

The true cost of EVs is masked by a litany of subsidies, transfers, and other expenses that are passed on to Americans who don’t own EVs, the report states.

www.theepochtimes.com

Would you support a constitutional amendment that required a presidential candidate to have at least four years service as a governor of one of the 50 states?

This would weed out a lot of hyperbole and mass hysteria. The debates could be based on accomplishments, failed policies, and successful policies. This would also be a win for fiscal conservatives since states don’t have unlimited access to debt like the federal government does. Most states even have a balanced budget amendment. These habits wouldn’t prevent runaway spending or deficit spending but would gives us an executive that has inclinations to make sound financial decisions that they were discipled in to practicing as a governor especially in those states with balanced budget requirements. Bill Clinton campaigned that he had a balanced budget every year he was governor of Arkansas. That was nothing to brag about because Arkansas law required a balanced budget. However Clinton will go down in history as the most fiscally conservative president since Calvin Coolidge. Say what you will but numbers don’t lie. I’d love for all future presidents to be former governors but the American people are suckers for shiny things like an one term charismatic young senator or a provocative businessman that never even served as a city councilman or even an enlisted service member in the military. I just wish presidential elections were as boring as Ben Stein giving a detailed 6 hour analysis of safety practices of blanket usage. That’s the America I envision .

No. I would, however, support an amendment require a candidate to have some form of prior service in either government or the military to be eligible because I consider the two primary functions of a president to be head of the government and commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

 

[1srelluc]

Sounds stupid. Such a law would disqualify anyone from the District of Columbia from becoming President. Further, if a state were to decide to have commissioners or supervisors instead of a governor rule their realms, this would put their citizens at a tremendous disadvantage.

Lastly, such a law would ensure that the only Presidents we would ever have would be long term members of the Deep State, making change impossible

Not really, Virginia governors only serve one four-year term.

I would be nice for our Chief Executive to have executive experience running at least one out of 50 states.....DC and territories can fuck right off.

Blah, America wants a low-rent popularity contest and that's what they got.....You could not get any more low- rent than Biden.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Would you support a constitutional amendment that required a presidential candidate to have at least four years service as a governor of one of the 50 states?

No

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Would you support a constitutional amendment that required a presidential candidate to have at least four years service as a governor of one of the 50 states?

If the American people wanted that, there would be no need for a constitutional amendment because they would vote that way in the first place. It's the same problem as term limits.

 

[presonorek]

If the American people wanted that, there would be no need for a constitutional amendment because they would vote that way in the first place. It's the same problem as term limits.

You got me. I’d vote for a boring governor over a non governor in every election regardless of policy, ideology, or party. We haven’t even had that option since 2012. Mitt Romney is actually the only time I ever made a campaign contribution to a political candidate.

 

[bripat9643]

Would you support a constitutional amendment that required a presidential candidate to have at least four years service as a governor of one of the 50 states?

This would weed out a lot of hyperbole and mass hysteria. The debates could be based on accomplishments, failed policies, and successful policies. This would also be a win for fiscal conservatives since states don’t have unlimited access to debt like the federal government does. Most states even have a balanced budget amendment. These habits wouldn’t prevent runaway spending or deficit spending but would gives us an executive that has inclinations to make sound financial decisions that they were discipled in to practicing as a governor especially in those states with balanced budget requirements. Bill Clinton campaigned that he had a balanced budget every year he was governor of Arkansas. That was nothing to brag about because Arkansas law required a balanced budget. However Clinton will go down in history as the most fiscally conservative president since Calvin Coolidge. Say what you will but numbers don’t lie. I’d love for all future presidents to be former governors but the American people are suckers for shiny things like an one term charismatic young senator or a provocative businessman that never even served as a city councilman or even an enlisted service member in the military. I just wish presidential elections were as boring as Ben Stein giving a detailed 6 hour analysis of safety practices of blanket usage. That’s the America I envision .

Short answer: no.

 

[1srelluc]

If the American people wanted that, there would be no need for a constitutional amendment because they would vote that way in the first place. It's the same problem as term limits.

True, the parties themselves could come together to make that rule.

Sure anyone could still run but the party would choose to support them in the efforts or not.

It might be a good way to get a third party too.

 

[bripat9643]

If the American people wanted that, there would be no need for a constitutional amendment because they would vote that way in the first place. It's the same problem as term limits.

There is no problem with term limits. The point of term limits is to control who you can vote for, not who I can vote for. They prevent you from voting for the same old scumbag year faster year, who has been screwing me.

 

[bripat9643]

Not really, Virginia governors only serve one four-year term.

I would be nice for our Chief Executive to have executive experience running at least one out of 50 states.....DC and territories can fuck right off.

Blah, America wants a low-rent popularity contest and that's what they got.....You could not get any more low- rent than Biden.

Running a corporation is executive experience, but this amendment would rule those candidates out.

 

[presonorek]

Running a corporation is executive experience, but this amendment would rule those candidates out.

Yes it would. Governments have a much different function than corporations.

 

[bripat9643]

No. I would, however, support an amendment require a candidate to have some form of prior service in either government or the military to be eligible because I consider the two primary functions of a president to be head of the government and commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Again, no. Being a minion of the state is not the kind of experience we need in the chief executive. It's exactly the wrong kind of experience.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes it would. Governments have a much different function than corporations.

True, but that doesn't make experience in the apparatus of control a positive.

 

[1srelluc]

Running a corporation is executive experience, but this amendment would rule those candidates out.

Governor Youngkin has said running a state is really nothing like running a company.

If you are running a company you can fire assholes.....Running a state you have to wait for the electorate to fire the assholes.

 

[presonorek]

Running a state you have to wait for the electorate to fire the assholes.

A slightly different topic but I think bureaucrats are set for the most part. I don’t even think the electorate has that power. There are centuries of laws of the self preservation of government employees.

 

[bripat9643]

Governor Youngkin has said running a state is really nothing like running a company.

If you are running a company you can fire assholes.....Running a state you have to wait for the electorate to fire the assholes.

Wrong. Presidents can fire employees of the executive branch.