She’ll have a full cabinet, policy crafted by an army, and practical experience under her belt. She’s clearly charismatic. AFAIK she’s not anti science or conspiratorial or anything… So what if she’s not a Harvard Graduate? As much as I’d like an STEM PhD in the White House, compared to most alternatives, I almost view that as a plus.
None of that matters when the person making the final call knows less about how her job works than most of the voters. We need well educated leaders not people you can be almost certain do not know anything about the subjects needed to govern effectively eg the law, economics, history, diplomacy, and what the various parts of the government do.
We should never select anyone that undereducated. It will always end badly because the leader cannot know what they are doing.
The American voters clearly don’t care about actual qualifications. The presidency is an attention contest, pure and simple. Truth is relative. Even if we get a highly qualified president in (and I don’t believe that’s possible anymore) they’re going to be totally beholden to Facebook and Twitter politics memes.
I’d rather have someone that can dominate the narrative and wield actual political power to do decent things, even if their decisions aren’t always the best. Like… who else could bring millions into civic engagement?
I’m just answering with who has been less educated, which is decidedly different than how much of a dumbass they are. A position Trump holds a massive lead on compared to any other president in history (quite possibly any “leader” in history)
And oddly HW Bush was the most qualified candidate to hold the office as an ex-VPOTUS, chair of the RNC, UN Ambassador, CIA chief, Congressmen, and an ex-war hero. Even more oddly was that despite these qualifications he was merely okay at being POTUS
A democratic leader needs to accurately represent their constituents and surround themselves with knowledgeable experts. No matter how well-schooled someone is, no one person can know everything involved in running a country.
A degree doesn’t prove a person actually applied themselves and absorbed the information, and auto-didacts can absolutely study macroecon and diplomacy.
You can absolutely self-teach math and macroecon. I’m not trying to claim that Swift has, or would, or that it is an easy thing to teach, but the idea that it is somehow outside the bounds of the auto-didact is absurd.
Fuck it, I’d vote for her
I mean, she’s managed her image and business this long. I think politics is a good fit for her skillset.
As is the power she’d wield over the Democrat Party. They would worship the ground she walks on (in an attempt for some of that celebrity to rub off).
…But the election would be gruesomely dirty. I can only imagine all the shit that would get thrown at her.
She has little education beyond high school. The president needs to be better educated than she is.
She’ll have a full cabinet, policy crafted by an army, and practical experience under her belt. She’s clearly charismatic. AFAIK she’s not anti science or conspiratorial or anything… So what if she’s not a Harvard Graduate? As much as I’d like an STEM PhD in the White House, compared to most alternatives, I almost view that as a plus.
And again, she will have so much power. It would be like Trump, where she can swing unpopular stances through sheer force of will (like Trump is doing in the current Middle East visit: https://www.axios.com/2025/05/15/trump-israel-syria-policy-reverse-biden )
None of that matters when the person making the final call knows less about how her job works than most of the voters. We need well educated leaders not people you can be almost certain do not know anything about the subjects needed to govern effectively eg the law, economics, history, diplomacy, and what the various parts of the government do.
We should never select anyone that undereducated. It will always end badly because the leader cannot know what they are doing.
Ehh, I agree in principle but have grown cynical.
The American voters clearly don’t care about actual qualifications. The presidency is an attention contest, pure and simple. Truth is relative. Even if we get a highly qualified president in (and I don’t believe that’s possible anymore) they’re going to be totally beholden to Facebook and Twitter politics memes.
I’d rather have someone that can dominate the narrative and wield actual political power to do decent things, even if their decisions aren’t always the best. Like… who else could bring millions into civic engagement?
That probably makes her better educated than the current POTUS.
Yes, but he is one of the least well educated presidents.
Who was worse?
Washington, Jackson, Van Buren, Taylor, Fillmore, Lincoln, and Grover Cleveland got a high school (ish) level of education.
Andrew Johnson got tutored while he was an apprentice.
In modern times, I think only republicans have not gone further than undergrad (Reagan, HW Bush, Trump), going back to Roosevelt (FD not Teddy).
Of all of them, how many have been called “dumbest student ever?” https://studyinternational.com/news/trump-student-wharton/
I’m not the person you’ve been replying to.
I’m just answering with who has been less educated, which is decidedly different than how much of a dumbass they are. A position Trump holds a massive lead on compared to any other president in history (quite possibly any “leader” in history)
And oddly HW Bush was the most qualified candidate to hold the office as an ex-VPOTUS, chair of the RNC, UN Ambassador, CIA chief, Congressmen, and an ex-war hero. Even more oddly was that despite these qualifications he was merely okay at being POTUS
He is among a handful that only have a college degree. Most POTUS had post-graduate educations.
So should I just repeat my question, or what?
No, he’s not the worst. There are others with less or the equivalent of high school only or less.
A democratic leader needs to accurately represent their constituents and surround themselves with knowledgeable experts. No matter how well-schooled someone is, no one person can know everything involved in running a country.
As our Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott once said, “No man is a suppository”. Lol.
True but you need to know more than someone who only has a GED is going to know about macroeconomics and diplomacy.
A degree doesn’t prove a person actually applied themselves and absorbed the information, and auto-didacts can absolutely study macroecon and diplomacy.
The lack of a degree is what is relevant here because it proves what they haven’t been educated in.
She lacks all of the relevant math to be able to study macro. It’s not a subject that lends itself to self teaching.
You can absolutely self-teach math and macroecon. I’m not trying to claim that Swift has, or would, or that it is an easy thing to teach, but the idea that it is somehow outside the bounds of the auto-didact is absurd.
Im guessing you have zero education in either. It would take her a decade to catch up given how far back her education is compared to the norm.
Think about how much your average person who has a GED knows, there is zero reason to expect Swift to be better educated than that person.
deleted by creator
At this point, anything is better than orange
I’d vote for anything that doesn’t shit it pants hourly.
I’d vote for any adult without brain damage.
I’d vote for Liz Truss’s cabbage.
“Liz Truss’s cabbage”. Is that a euphemism ? Because I’d happily vote for that also.
yes, its how long liz truss survived being the pm in the UK, a whole head of cabbage(from fresh to rotten) which lasted longer than her tenure.
the american one is scarramuci.
It’s the cabbage that was live-streamed for the duration of her holding office.
It survived longer than her tenure.
Anything? Really? Anything?
There is always worse…