Besides, of course, holding public office.

Being CEO of a publicly trade company with a strong board, large shareholder blocks and a union that manufactures a competitive product would probably share some qualifications. CEO of a vanity company started with Daddy's money employing a bunch of sycophants has proven itself to be completely lacking any qualifications, except maybe how to end your public service in prison.

except if the example was the baseball player playing basketball because they are both sports and must be the same thing...

I did not write any of that, ******. Do not falsely claim that I’ve written things that I have not. Duh.

I personally disagree. I think running a large corporations is way better of a pre-requisite to being in public service than holding public office previously. However, I could understand why you and others think that.

I think you are wrong. If someone is starting in the MLB they are likely to be at least a decent basketball player compared to the average person with a random job or no job at all - which is what we are talking about here... is running a huge corporation a good indication on how well someone will do in office.

It is obvious to all who read the thread that I was mocking your stance that running a massive corporation doesn't help quite a bit in qualifying someone to run for public office. For the record, I think what you said sounds even sillier than my analogy.

I believe you. Maybe “think” better?

Bahbah, does being a financial advisor make someone better at understanding the very basics of how taxes work than 90% of the population?

One would hope so. I dealt with one at Fidelity who didn't know what a wash sale was.

So your baseball/cricket analysis doesn't work for politics? That just seems moronic.

I think, as the MLB farm system has proven, that the best way to become a MLB player is to graduate through the minor league system, not to play cricket.

+1

Nope .
It takes two different skills because their goals are very different .
Public services do not run like a business and a business do not run like a public service .

Michael Jordan pretty much proved that u might be the goat in basketball but do not translate in becoming the goat in another sport !
Hell he couldn’t even achieve the major league in baseball ….
So u can be great at managing private assets and suck at managing public asset .

There is a massive amount of crossover in skills between cricket and baseball but likely even more crossover between running a company and being a politician.

Montreal, I love how you can completely disagree with my post when you start writing a post and then completely agree with me by the end of the same post. Baseball is more closely related to cricket than basketball, but you make a great point that a great athlete is a great athlete and skills tend to carryover. As you wisely point out - MJ was easily in the top 1% of baseball players when he was in his athletic prime - as I'm sure you know there are 2M little league players in the US alone and there are only 2.2k players between MLB & AAA baseball.

Running and growing a large business should be one of the top professions we look for in a politician.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. In no way did I suggest the best path to the MLB is to play cricket. I just said there is a lot of crossover between the two sports and that the top 1% of players from each sport would be top 10% in the other sport.

People who believe that successful business people are highly likely to be successful politicians overwhelming assume that lucrative private sector jobs are where the "best" people end up.

People who believe that there is no correlation or negative correlation between being successful at business and being a good politician overwhelming assume that lucrative private sector jobs are where the "worst" people end up.

Both assumptions are way too facile imo.

depends what you mean by "best" and "worst" i guess.

i dont think business people are good at running governments because the purposes are diametrically opposed. i dont want my government to run at a surplus/profit. the government running at a surplus is more likely a failure to spend money on infrastructure/helping constituents in favor of looking good to a few people in optics. while a "good" government maintains a balance, the purpose shouldn't be anything similar to the approach in running a company.

a business leader approaches a budget and says "how can i pull more money out of this system.".. a government leader SHOULD approach a budget and say "how can i spend ALL of this money most efficiently and effectively"

With people like Trump, Ramaswamy or Andrew Yang you don’t really need to make any assumptions. Just listen to them talk. They are clearly not qualified and haven’t done the work to familiarize themselves with the information required to be successful. They want the fame etc that comes with being a politician but not enough to work hard behind the scenes to make up for any deficiencies.

Seemed to work for Trump considering he beat Hillary

Are you suggesting that Trump was a good choice for president because he managed to get elected?

We are talking about skill sets, not objectives.

e_d was talking about qualification, not electability. Trump spent 4 years demonstrating his lack of qualifications to those who chose to overlook that when voting for him. Sadly, some of you plan to vote for him again in spite of that.

where do the best wind up?

You are correct that I will cast my vote without regard to e_d or anyone else in the forum's opinion.

An outstanding choice over Crooked Hillary and The Biden Crime Family

Yeah, I don’t think there was much doubt he was not mentally, intellectually and temperamentally unsuited for the job. He’s probably the only candidate in history that would lose if only his cabinet level officials were allowed to vote on the general.

All one has to do to completely invalidate everything in this post is to watch CharlesBarkley play golf.

But Trump embraces racism, homophobia, xenophobia, assholishness and a variety of other douchie traits that other potential GOP (and obv Democratic) candidates just don’t have. So, they have no choice but to vote for Trump.

I just saw a news blurb about a poll that has trump ahead in a lot of the swing states.

How does this country stand a chance when the people believe that one of the worst humans on the planet should be their leader. It's like we are rotting from within.