Why is Donald Trump allowed to run for President?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Frank

Woodrow Wilson had a doctorate in political science. (I picked him to investigate because of his career in academia. I was actually surprised; I thought he would have a PhD, but it would be in the classics.)

He was actually a Political Science professor who wrote some pretty well known books, and it was on the strength of his academic reputation that he became President of Princeton.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Barack_Obama

Yes.

Another requirement should be a masters in politics and international relations. Even the President has 20 political analysts the president their self should have a fundamental understanding of Politics. An economist cannot run a country.

Did John F. Kennedy have such a degree? I honestly don’t remember.

Harry Truman never even aquired a Bachelor’s degree. Was he unqualified?

For that matter, do you have a Master’s in either of those Mr. President?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

Simply put because 1) requiring a certain education level would be an anti-democratic and anti-popular law akin to property qualifications for suffrage and office in earlier centuries and 2) formal education even in politics is no predictor of one’s competence as President. Some very intelligent and well-educated men like Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter made very incompetent Presidents while some of our best Presidents including Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman went to college. Certainly, I’d rather have a union steel welder as my Commander in Chief rather than Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand.

Donald Trump proves my point actually-his ideas and especially his grasp of the popular mood are more in line with reality compared to most of the Republican Establishment of the Beltway-Wall Street-Silicon Valley axis. He’s not the one claiming that privatizing Social Security or gutting Medicare would someone be of advantage to anybody but the top 10% of income earners nor defending the Iraq War.

In relation to this, I urge everyone in this thread to read the following article: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/13/the_medias_dangerous_policy_wonk_fetish_why_america_doesnt_need_a_president_with_bold_new_ideas/

Good presidents are not policy wonks. As Chris Matthews has pointed out in the past, if presidential candidates are going to be quizzed about details of public policy during debates by journalists, the candidates should be permitted to refer to notes. Why should a presidential campaign be a test of the ability to memorize budget numbers and foreign capitals? It’s a campaign for the office of chief magistrate, for God’s sake, not the SAT or “Jeopardy” or a qualification test for MENSA.

Presidents should be well-informed enough to have good judgment in knowing which experts and intellectuals to listen to—and which to ignore. But they should not be narrow experts or creative intellectuals themselves. They commission and study reports, they do not research and write them.

[Ethilrist]

As a friend of mine once put it, “Harmon Glass don’t hire no blind glaziers.” If the American people elect Trump, he gets to be president. If you don’t want that to happen, telling us isn’t going to change things much…

[guizot]

@Horatio_Hellpop

. . . a candidate has to get X thousand signatures in Y number of states, which is what keeps most potential vanity candidates off of it. Trump, for all his faults, has had no difficulty doing this.

Nevertheless, Trump is nothing more than a vanity candidate.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@guizot

Nevertheless, Trump is nothing more than a vanity candidate.

On the contrary at this point the only non-vanity candidates in the race are Clinton, Sanders, TRUMP, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and possibly Christie and Kasich.

[GloryDays]

@Horatio_Hellpop

In addition to the age and natural born citizen requirements, to appear on the ballot, a candidate has to get X thousand signatures in Y number of states, which is what keeps most potential vanity candidates off of it. Trump, for all his faults, has had no difficulty doing this.

He’s an American. He has a right to be president. I disagree with him on some issues, but he’s an American. He’s worried about America. If Obama can run, why can he?

[octopus]

@Barack_Obama

From what I can tell he has no Political degree, little to no knowledge of international relations and foreign policies. He has little to no compassion or moral appeal to human beings. He’s mostly uses faulty Logos approaches from what I’ve seen, and when he has made ethos and pathos approaches to a debate it’s not out of humanitarianism like qualities but rather out of a black and white way of thinking. He’s attacked entire groups of people and labeled them as criminals and a threat to our safety. He want’s to work with putin on reclaiming the lost states of the warsaw pact (okay maybe not but I see no good that can come from letting Putin violate international laws and get away with it like we do).

So I’m just wondering how a poorly educated, or rather uneducated business man can actually run for President or any government leadership position like senator or governor. I understand we may have had uneducated a President in the past but that was at least a 100 years ago now. A dental nurse cannot fill your cavity, why? because they do not have the degree verifying they are able to carry out this procedure. Only the actual dentist is allowed to fill a cavity or do anything like that, because he specifically has a degree saying he can and is able to preform such a thing. Why is leading a country any different? Every hardworking politician who went through college and went through the hassle of whatever they chose to do is basically receiving a big middle finger to their face by this business man / celebrity who comes in with his own billions of dollars funding him self and says anything he wants even if it’s a fallacy and gets away with it because he literally has nothing at stake like these actual politicians.

Any clarification on this would be nice, or maybe Trump does have some degrees I don’t know about and can’t find on the internet. I’d really like to hear what you dopers’ two cents are.

We should also restrict who can vote based on degrees, education, and values.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@octopus

We should also restrict who can vote based on degrees, education, and values.

Sarcasm I presume.

[bob_2]

@octopus

We should also restrict who can vote based on degrees, education, and values.

Hmm - why stop there - I suggest that voting should be restricted to males, over 21, who are property owners with an income of more than $xxx,xxx per year (amount to be decided)

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@bob_2

Hmm - why stop there - I suggest that voting should be restricted to males, over 21, who are property owners with an income of more than $xxx,xxx per year (amount to be decided)

And Anglicans only. Can’t have dirty Papists and clodhopper Nonconformists exercising suffrage rights.

[John_Mace]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

On the contrary at this point the only non-vanity candidates in the race are Clinton, Sanders, TRUMP, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and possibly Christie and Kasich.

I’m so glad you cleared that up for all of us!

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@John_Mace

I’m so glad you cleared that up for all of us!

I mean if you aren’t either at least polling in the two digits or offering any fresh, new ideas then what else is your campaign but trying to maximize your fame and notability?

[Little_Nemo]

There are four requirements to become President:

1. Be a natural born citizen
2. Reside in the United States for fourteen years
3. Be at least thirty five years old
4. Get elected.

Millions of people can meet the first three standards. So it’s the fourth one that’s important.

[Little_Nemo]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I mean if you aren’t either at least polling in the two digits or offering any fresh, new ideas then what else is your campaign but trying to maximize your fame and notability?

Sucking up to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@John_Mace

Since this is GQ, I’m just going to say that, no, that is not a fact. That is an opinion.

Thanks for the explanation. I’m sure that the word should was super confusing to some folks and they were thinking the poster was stating facts not an opinion. You should be commended for your effort.

[D_Anconia]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

Thanks for the explanation. I’m sure that the word should was super confusing to some folks and they were thinking the poster was stating facts not an opinion. You should be commended for your effort.

I’m sure that the word factual, in the forum description, was super confusing to you and the OP.

[running_coach]

@D_Anconia

I’m sure that the word factual, in the forum description, was super confusing to you and the OP.

Forum Description.

For discussion of elections and electoral politics, including strategy and tactics, political parties, individual races, political news, and politicians and public figures.

[D_Anconia]

@running_coach

Forum Description.

See post #14.

[John_Mace]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

Thanks for the explanation. I’m sure that the word should was super confusing to some folks and they were thinking the poster was stating facts not an opinion. You should be commended for your effort.

The thread was in GQ at the time. My post was not directed at anyone besides that poster.