(But) I’m most interested in considering the probability of people whose primary draw as a candidate is fame they gained through something like the entertainment industry, for example. Because the skill set necessary to succeed seems to have little to do with being an effective POTUS.
Trump is still a “business man”, so Lumifer is right that it’s reasonable to assume he’s at least a competent manager. The same could be said of Musk or Gates.
Ashton Kutcher might be a better possibility—investor, venture capitalist, manager of a human rights organization. Highly well known (but only because of acting), and would almost certainly be a foil to Trump in many ways.
So, lessee, a pretty face who dropped out of college, was Demi Moore’s boy-toy for a while, is rich (apparently it’s now spelled as “investor”), a student of Kabbalah, has a Russian (for certain values of “Russian”) wife. Clearly, prime presidential material.
Oh, and he is not a “manager” of a human-rights organization. He is on their board of directors which translates to “gives money to” and was a co-founder during his boy-toy phase.
I agree Ashton Kutcher doesn’t pass my initial presidential smell test. But I’m not sure Trump did either, especially as a GOP candidate...
Thrice married. Foreign born trophy wife. Only recently pro life. Just fine with gay marriage. Not terribly fiscally conservative. Prone to vulgarity. Bromantic af with Putin. Proud adulterer & pussy grabber. Orange.
Yeah, definitely the “pretty boy” thing is the biggest problem for Kutcher—even if it turns out he’s a better businessman than Trump. There’s something about that kind of personality where I think most people would have a hard time taking him seriously.
Sure. (Though he isn’t U.S. born) Or Bill Gates.
(But) I’m most interested in considering the probability of people whose primary draw as a candidate is fame they gained through something like the entertainment industry, for example. Because the skill set necessary to succeed seems to have little to do with being an effective POTUS.
Trump is still a “business man”, so Lumifer is right that it’s reasonable to assume he’s at least a competent manager. The same could be said of Musk or Gates.
Ashton Kutcher might be a better possibility—investor, venture capitalist, manager of a human rights organization. Highly well known (but only because of acting), and would almost certainly be a foil to Trump in many ways.
So, lessee, a pretty face who dropped out of college, was Demi Moore’s boy-toy for a while, is rich (apparently it’s now spelled as “investor”), a student of Kabbalah, has a Russian (for certain values of “Russian”) wife. Clearly, prime presidential material.
Oh, and he is not a “manager” of a human-rights organization. He is on their board of directors which translates to “gives money to” and was a co-founder during his boy-toy phase.
Clearly we could never have a president with even the slightest hint of Russian connections. No sir.
Well, that’s what the left-wing media keeps telling me nowadays… :-P
I agree Ashton Kutcher doesn’t pass my initial presidential smell test. But I’m not sure Trump did either, especially as a GOP candidate...
Thrice married. Foreign born trophy wife. Only recently pro life. Just fine with gay marriage. Not terribly fiscally conservative. Prone to vulgarity. Bromantic af with Putin. Proud adulterer & pussy grabber. Orange.
GOP: We’ll take it!
Actually, I think it was more like this:
No. No! No!!! Nooooooo!!!!! OK, whatever… Wait, what?
Yeah, definitely the “pretty boy” thing is the biggest problem for Kutcher—even if it turns out he’s a better businessman than Trump. There’s something about that kind of personality where I think most people would have a hard time taking him seriously.