Past Presidents;
Bush 2 – Executive experience as twice elected Governor of Texas. Business Experience. Military experience flying Jets in the Guard.
Clinton – Executive experience as Governor of Arkansas.
Bush 1 – Executive experience in Business and as head of the CIA. Served in WW2.
Reagan – Executive experience as Governor of California
Carter – Executive experience as Governor of Georgia. Military experience.
JFK had a thin resume but at least he served in the Military.
Hillary - ? crickets……
Obama - ? crickets……
(The Democrats are falling all over themsleves for two candidates that have never managed as much as a hot dog stand)
2007-10-01 01:37:35 · 12 answers · asked by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ha! ha! Penelope we gotta love ya! Of course, and military experience as a discipline a very helpful. However, if we have a president without the military, whose to say he would make a better president. Executive experience, yes, I would have to agree. Someone who also is capable of knowing and handling foreign and domestic policy.
Hillary is the last person we would want as president. We cannot afford her! We do not need big government running our lives. experience? Zilch done for New York State. High taxes and running this country to the ground is what Hillary brings to the table.
Obama, no experience and really not viable at this time, same ideals as Hillary.
We need a conservative. If the Blue states are any indication of where the Democrats will take us. We better take heed.
We need a real conservative in the top office of this country!
2007-10-01 01:48:24 · answer #1 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I advise that the top decrease for contributions be executed away with, and that the utmost payouts in retirement nonetheless proceed to be as they are, adjusted for inflation. Social secure practices isn't a "provide away" application yet one that all of us make contributions to love a mark downs plan, and may be shielded from different makes use of by way of the government. Do you compromise or disagree and why? in case you're so worrying approximately it then why do no longer you; first placed it back into the interior maximum sector and make to have been no can take out money from it for their very own interest, 2nd pay back each and every penny you have borrowed from the two Social secure practices and Medicare, 0.33 take the unlawful immigrants off of it and people who come over right here yet never paid a penny to it, and finally have it a similar for each individual; in different words government officers are to take part in it and in the event that they % something extra they do it on their very own without the tax payers investment it?yet, the economic stytem feeding the imbalances had never been truly replaced. They, a team of pupils, pronounced that each and every physique expenses of interest could be 3% or much less for each individual to strengthen into prosperous if wished (that would desire to be genuine additionally to taces). the superb economic difficulty could be, they pronounced, whilst there have been no expenses of interest. Why no longer attempt this answer? the wealthy could nonetheless be prosperous. My question is: whilst soial secure practices will become a topic related to federal money owed, why no longer artwork with a balanced or income funds and spend no better than is obtainable in, as any kin has to attempt for? Why no longer ban all loobying presents with a view to get rules that serve the country? God bless usa of america.
2016-10-20 11:23:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would take Bush 2 away from the alter of the exalted ones.
Hardly consider his dad very effective either. This is probably one of the few times I would ever agree with you.
I can't stand Hillary either. Obama I would consider.
I am not sure executive experience is all that important : How much did Lincoln have?
2007-10-01 01:44:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's probably a good thing, but certainly not the only thing. There are times when our nation needs someone with leadership experience. There are other times when our nation needs someone who has experience working in groups. Finally, there are times when all we need is someone who comes from outside to breathe new life into the process or someone who has a different perspective on the issues. Think about where we are today and what it is that we need.
2007-10-01 01:46:39 · answer #4 · answered by skip742 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well.. as a Democrat I would say "Executive experience sure didn't help the Bush's now did it".. and as a Republican you would say "it sure didn't help Clinton or Carter"....
So I'd say it's inconclusive.... so why not run an experiment and find out in the next election
:)
2007-10-01 01:43:48 · answer #5 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes it is but that won't stop the Democrats since they know what's best for us and need to get total control so that they can protect us from ourself
2007-10-01 03:32:39 · answer #6 · answered by tap158 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Couldn't hurt. But Bush was a failed business leader and ran Texas into the ground.
2007-10-01 01:53:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Is it important?
Heck Yes it is!
Is(are) the democrat candidate front runner(s) Severe >LACK< of these things going to dissuade them from voting for them.....Oh heck no!
Why would they need it?
It's not like they are going to save, or make money.....Right?!?
It's a sickness I tell ya!
T.S.
2007-10-01 01:44:29 · answer #8 · answered by electronic_dad 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It most certainly is. Sitting on a legislative body for a length of time certainly is no substitute to holding an executive office....
2007-10-01 01:42:01 · answer #9 · answered by Brian 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
It's a particularly irritating habit of some americans to use this site for their own political ends. Do you honestly think the YA crowd are gonna read your biased diatribe?....
2007-10-01 01:42:07 · answer #10 · answered by Doodie 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋