It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would Trump be the first US president without any previous government employment?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I'm not sure if the following page is perfect, that's why I'm asking this question:

List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience

I double checked the page and it appears to me that Trump would be the first US president without any previous government employment.

Does that make him even more revolutionary than Sanders?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-Trump. I'm just pointing out this amazing fact.

I was horrified that George W. Bush legalized torture and signed bills that took away everyone's rights. Trump makes Bush look good sometimes. But, let's remember that a president can't do much of anything alone so Trump's talk will mostly amount to nothing.




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Interesting List.
Could Trump also be the first President that is not related to European Royalty?
Every President is somehow related to each other - and British Royalty.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Now2016
a reply to: Profusion

Interesting List.
Could Trump also be the first President that is not related to European Royalty?
Every President is somehow related to each other - and British Royalty.


No. As usual, Trump and Clinton just happen to be related to each other (and British royalty).

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton revealed to be distant cousins as family trees show they share same set of royal ancestors

You can read in the following thread about how some poster believes that's all not too strange:

Does Bernie Sanders have enough royal blood to be POTUS?
edit on 25-2-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

OK thanks for the info. I will read into it.
My mistake, the leaders are all inbred aren't they? Facepalm.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Now2016

I would wager that quite a few American people with no power what so ever, are also related to British nobility.

Quite a few British people with no power, are probably related to the nobility somehow as well, and that ought to tell you something. You see, combining an understanding of history, with an understanding of genetics, ought to make it IMPOSSIBLE to be surprised, shocked, dismayed, or have any reaction what so ever, to the possibility that Trump, the Clintons, or any other US citizen might be related to the British nobility.

Why? Because vast amounts of the gene stock from which Americas population comes, is British. Think it through, for pities sake!



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I think there is only one country on the planet that would find it acceptable to allow a housing bubble, a financial collapse, a government funded bail out of the banks, no inquest, no charges , no jail time, no impeachment because of the laws allowing it to happen then consider electing a realestate 1% er billionair.
I thought honestly you would be in full swing revolution by now America, maybe another 4 years when we get into full on Idiocracy.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Government experience? I thought big Business runs the government.

They prefer to run things from behind their select puppets.

Trump has never held any kind of political office…

theres your sign.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

True that. My grandmother had us traced back to a baron who died around the time of WiIliam the Conqueror.

So I have noble blood in my veins for what little that's worth. Go back far enough, and virtually anyone does.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I am not a Trump supporter, but you cannot run a private business like you run the government bureaucracy. Private business cannot simply raise a rate and attempt to bring in more revenue if it starts running in the red because the law saws you must comply.

At this point, my main hope is that Trump can move in a force the bureaucracy to at least run more like a private business bureaucracy would which would mean it gets slimmer and meaner and much more efficient. That would also mean massive job cuts if it actually happens, but that's OK. We cannot continue to pay for an ever-expanding bureaucracy.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Now2016

Fun fact, if you go back far enough, everyone is related.


(post by Now2016 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Imo, the "bureaucracy" is window dressing, hiding the rampant corruption or 'pork barrel' projects that are the real goal.

If something is to go ahead it sails throughout the approval process, if not, it becomes mired down in the bureaucratic swamp.

Tied up forever in argument from 'both side' of the isle, committees, hearings, investigations, blah blah.

But if its a bank bailout or shiny new air craft carrier…. done deal.

The business of government is to make money for business, leaving the bills to be paid by Posterity. Hiding all that is called "Politics".

The constitution (whats that?) was set up to prevent this.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Interesting list and good question.

I noted that Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S Grant and D. Eisenhower were only military before becoming president, so while I understand they were being employed by the US government they themselves were not active politicians before taking the office of president.

Trump would be a lot of first, but to say he would be the first president without governing experence would be inaccurate at best. George Washington had little experience running a government when he became president.

Now to imply that Trump has little connections to the United States government would be silly too. Trump actively has lobbyist push for tax cuts and other laws that will help his corporation succeed. Trump has funded many political campaigns, for the same reason anyone with power funds political campaigns and that is to gain favor. Trump knows how modern politics works, and in my mind, that is what makes him so scary. Trump is a lot like little-finger from Game of Thrones, he acts like a common man who understands what it's like trying to get by, yet he is a dirty liar who would backstab his own mother for power.




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

What about George Washington? The country didn't exist before he was President.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   
My post got removed because I congratulated the britguy on his infinite wisdom?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Profusion

What about George Washington? The country didn't exist before he was President.


According to the wiki page in the original post, he was "Commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War."

The title of this thread includes the words "without any previous government employment", which government is not relevant. Either you have been a government employee or you haven't.

Also according to that wiki page:

"Washington was first chosen by the Virginia State Legislature to be a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Then he was elected by the delegates to be president of the convention."

If Washington's experience in the army isn't enough for you, that last point has to be. The federal government in the beginning was a union of the states (I believe that's been changed, different issue). Since Washington was employed by one of the states he still was employed by part of what became the US federal government.


originally posted by: Now2016
My post got removed because I congratulated the britguy on his infinite wisdom?


[sarcasm]I would advise watching the movie "Alice in Wonderland" as a refresher.[/sarcasm]
edit on 25-2-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Alright. Fair enough.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Previous government employment hasn't helped Obama be much good as a president although he is in good company with some of his European and British counterparts.

Perhaps someone without it might be a breath of fresh air?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I believe the country needs someone who is not a career politician to walk into the White House and tell everyone they don't care how things were always done in the past, it's time for a fresh start. I don't see how anyone can look at the USA and think things haven't been slowly deteriorating, regardless of which President was in power.

I just wish we had more choices that fit this criteria other than Trump. He's a hell of a lot closer than da Bern, and Hillary should be laughed off the ballot (Thanks for nothing Democrat voters).



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I am talking about the alphabet agencies which the executive actively controls and directs. A CEO mindset might shake that up.

Since I am now looking at a Trump candidacy whether I want it or not, I have to start thinking of what the potential positives might be.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join