He had no executive experience. Never worked outside of academia and politics. No relevant experience. He didn't even grow up here in large part.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook on Immigration Executive Order: 'It is Not a Policy We Support'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He had no executive experience. Never worked outside of academia and politics. No relevant experience. He didn't even grow up here in large part.
Semantics you say? LOL, have it your way. I am not that hard to crack. All you have to do is provide evidence. You have provided none. Just name calling. Like a kid.
Or I can take 'evidence' into consideration. And so that you don't get triggered, I will do that. Just for you. So today I have learned that Mexico is a race, and that Trump is evil, bigoted racist.
I have also learned that stars do fall from the sky. And I just made a wish...
I'm sure that teachers everywhere will be thrilled to hear that there jobs aren't in The Real World. And yeah, working as a lawyer is of absolutely no relevance to being President, a job that involves creating and enforcing the laws. (and for the record I've seen schoolhouse rock and am aware that the President doesn't create laws - his veto power gives him involvement in creating them)
Seems like you're working backwards and defining "not relevant" as anything he did.
Four years out of the country is "he didn't grow up here"? Nice spin. You want to see his birth certificate again too?
Christ on a bike, what a load of tripe.
That's a minute of my life I'm not getting back!
Since you only seem to work by assuming an insulting tone, I'll say nothing further. You seem to mistake discussion for war, and are prone to rapidly jumping to conclusions about those you disagree with.
How convenient that your objection to my tone gets you out of having to defend your debunked comments. Cheers.
Oh, right - you aren't allowed to write op orders. Perhaps when you grow past your 3 chevrons?
Wow. Wait, you actually believe any of that? You get your information on Islam from a guy who also believes evolution is fake and creationism is real?
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/welcome.htm
He also goes off the deep end about various other factions of christianity other than the one he personally believes in. I could write a similar hit piece about what "all modern christians" believe, using quotes from the bible as evidence, quoting chapter and verse, though there's not much need as The West Wing did it quite eloquently, years ago.
Clearly, Syntax is not your strong suit.
I have, at no time, referred to you as "right-wing", I have referred to the "right-wing fairy tales" perpetuated by people like our newly installed president, birthplace, religion, your choice, the usual nonsense that everyone knows is a lie, but people choose to believe, because they really just hate someone who isn't like them.
You can cry about me labeling you a "Right-Winger", but let's face it, if you're calling the ex-President "Barry O.", your pejorative tone betrays your true sentiments. The truth is, it's not a big deal, you can have any opinion you want, it's your constitutional right (Unlike the current draft-dodger president, I fought for that right, you can thank me later). If you're a bigot, just own it, don't creep around in the shadows pretending you're open-minded.
He didn't "grow up here"? What, do you live in a bucket? Hawaii not part of the country according to you?
As for experience, I believe President Obama was well versed in constitutional law in his academic career, this is something that cannot be said by our current president, who seems to have never actually read it, and in all likelihood, since his vocabulary and demeanor reflect the intellect & maturity of an 8 year-old, had his degree paid for by his father (like so many other things).
How many presidents have been executives? (I'll wait while you look it up) and of what relevance is that? I guess Bush's failure as an oil executive and baseball team experience made him a better president? God forbid how bad he would have been without that (if your opinion is valid in this respect). Still, with fewer bankruptcies, one could argue that "W" was a better businessman than the person currently occupying the White House.
There is no presidential requirement to be an executive, and based on our current President, being an executive does not guarantee any degree of competency. Despite taking an oath to uphold the constitution, he is at this very moment, likely violating the emoluments clause of the constitution.
Despite Obama not being an executive, he managed to whip Mitt's behind, quite an accomplishment for a "non-executive" to best such a captain of industry (too much Meatloaf and Magic Underwear probably made him complacent). Of course, Mitt did ruin a few companies along the way, seems to be a common theme amongst the executive pretenders to the oval office.
Now, why don't you regale us with tales of your "Real-World" job and experience. If you're over 35, a natural-born citizen (yes, we will have to see your birth certificate), lived here for fourteen years, and can fog a mirror, you are qualified to be president! You won't get my vote, but neither did Trump, and look how far in over his head he is.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
He was also working at a law firm for those twelve years, as an associate for three years, then as counsel. Plus in 1996 he was also elected to the Illinois senate.
He was also working at a law firm for those twelve years, as an associate for three years, then as counsel. Plus in 1996 he was also elected to the Illinois senate.
Chicago begs to differ with you:
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
He taught several classes, including Current Issues in Racism and the Law as well as Constitutional Law III. He may not have been a revered expert on the Constitution but very few professors are. Seems he was good enough to be invited to a tenure track position.
As a lecturer he is not looking for tenure and thus publishing is not a prerequisite for promotion; and the lecturer position is designed for people who have "high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching." Posner and Easterbrook are also lecturers at UofC for similar reasons.
Chicago, as the small university on the south side of that city is called:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
I understand it has a pretty decent law school, amongst other programs, but lack a cite. Nonetheless, I'll take its word as who is part of the faculty and considered a professor.
Last edited:
Two people responded to you with the same quote, showing a number of problems with your statement, and you took one to task on not giving you a specific enough source for the information (as if the information couldn't be trusted for this reason?), yet the other clearly gave the URL from which the quote was drawn: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
[doublepost=1486144473][/doublepost]
This speaks to your integrity not his. And I don't recall anyone citing former president Obama as being the best constitutional lawyer who ever lived.
I don't know the veracity of that statement (you failed to cite a source), but I do know that quite a few gun owners spent President Obama's entire two terms screaming hysterically that Obama was coming to take their guns, very soon, yet he never did that, did he? Did he just forget? Did he put some diabolical plan into place that will only come to fruition years after he left office?
Yeah, the statement directly from his former employer is "political rhetoric" but the opinion of a random anonymous internet guy must be gospel truth. Right.
I did. Not my bad that you were too lazy to click the link.
For someone who whines about parroting media narratives, you're laughably lacking in self awareness. Which is why I'm done with you. Cheers.
Actually, it's a very interesting time. Pendulums swing both ways and 4 years of Trump may be enough reignite the liberal movement and get some fresh faces as leaders. I think in some ways it's scarier to be a conservative because Trump is a populist, not a conservative and will do whatever he thinks is popular, orthodoxy be damned. Even so, the R's risk being tied to him the same way D's were to Obama when either does something unpopular.
Trump is resetting the media, Congress and the entire world's OODA Loop on a daily basis. Magnificent to watch, in a sick and twisted sort of way. I'll grin and bear it if government truly goes back to the people. Right now, it is overbearing and counterproductive
Trump's real problem is how the bureaucracy reacts. As many a President has discovered, they can leak information, slow down programs and generally make a President's life miserable and there is little he can do about it. To paraphrase Truman's comment when Eisenhower took over, the former General was about to find out that in Washington when someone says "Yes Sir" they often mean "Screw You."
He better hope his EM curve encompasses the bureaucracy's or else he is in for a rough dogfight.
So are Posner and Easterbrook, since they are also mere senior lecturers, also are mere figureheads? Methinks you dost not understand the difference between tenure track and non tenure track faculty positions.
[doublepost=1486150936][/doublepost]
Interestingly enough, a true textualist like Scalia would look at the preamble to the second, which reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" as forbidding the Federal government form disarming State militias. Yet Scalia dismissed the preamble in Heller despite arguing for a textualist approach to interpretation vs a loose constructionist.
Since the original intent of the passage is lost and a court cannot deduce what the phrase was intended to mean, especially in the light of various differing laws governing gun ownership in the colonies, judicial restraint would require allowing a law to stand unless it was clearly unConstitutional. Judicial restraint, however, is no less favored by conservatives than liberals when an issue is one they have a particular preference for how it is decided.
Lott appears to have been a Visiting Assistant Professor at Chicago, a non-tenure track limited term position; sort of a glorified lecturer rather than a "real" tenure track professor.. In fact, his entire academic career appears to consist of being a non-tenure track term or Visiting Assistant Professor and, horrors of horror, a mere lecturer. So if academic credentials are so vital his appear to be rather mundane compared to most tenured professors at a good school such as Chicago, Yale, et.al.; assuming he left academia around 2008 as his CV indicates.
Last edited:
How are you defining "executive experience"?
Given that the job of President is mainly political, I'd say that political experience is not only relevant, but pretty much crucial.