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.

 

If the United States had a scientist as president, would all problems be solved?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Now i know that professionals aren't electable, this is mainly due to, if a professional was electable, the US would run a lot better.

Why has there never been a president who was a scientist?

Practically all of the leaders of the united states have been in professions in the commerce field.
Why are there no scientists (physicists, biologists, math professors etc) who have been presidents?
Wouldn't they make better leaders?
They would know how people work, how the brain works, and how to advance and bring things foward.
They would make much better decisions than any past president, they'd be fair, just and honest
I mean in the past election, it was based on either sex, or race (hilary, mccain and obama), those are poor reasons to vote your next leader in imo, people were going to vote mccain, simply because he wasn't black, and they were going to vote for hilary simply because she was female, and people voted for obama simply because he was black.
Why not have, a biochemist or physicist as main running candidates? if either one gets voted in, we both win either way.

It seems throughout presidential history, most of the leaders, have made decisions based on double standards, and ones that didn't make sense.
‎"All men are created equal" - Thomas Jefferson,




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Not if he was a Political Scientist!!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six6Six
Not if he was a Political Scientist!!


Lol apart from that science
.
I'm pretty sure henry kissinger was one, and we definitely don't need people like him running anything.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
how about just a peaceful one for a change?

has there ever been a US president that didn't bully some small nation somewhere?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
What about a scientologist?

I would vote for John Travolta...fer sure.

He can dance,sing, and fly planes...as well as act..which is what all Politicians are good at anyway.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beavers
how about just a peaceful one for a change?

has there ever been a US president that didn't bully some small nation somewhere?



Well we could vote for a caring scientist, a female scientist!
We need people who are great at critical thinking.
Someone who knows what to do when we're attacked.

We can't have a hippy as a leader.
We need to have a peaceful leader, but not a leader, who can easily be taken advantage of.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Well, that always depends what kind of science he likes.

George W. Bush didn't like the science of evolution, but he sure loved the science of oil exploration and missiles.

I suppose extermination can also be done with scientific precision.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Expired
What about a scientologist?

I would vote for John Travolta...fer sure.

He can dance,sing, and fly planes...as well as act..which is what all Politicians are good at anyway.


No, scientologists or doctors
.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Well, that always depends what kind of science he likes.

George W. Bush didn't like the science of evolution, but he sure loved the science of oil exploration and missiles.

I suppose extermination can also be done with scientific precision.


But he wasn't a scientist he was a "Businessman (Oil, baseball)".
Not a person who likes sciences, but who is in the profession of one of the sciences.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 


or simply one that doesn't work for TPTB or blindly follow the bush family oil agenda?

ron paul looks a great candidate on paper, but so did obama... i still can't believe the first black president declared war on africa instead of trying to help it feed itself!!

england had maggie thatcher, she sold all off all the UK's assets to rich american firms, so was obviously just another puppet.

people are corruptible, whatever sex or profession they are!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 


The thing is... politicians fund scientists. Not the other way around.

If we can have a dude like Tony Stark in reality then hell yeah I'm voting for him!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 

You have an interesting view of how life is!

Here is a Wikipedia article that breaks down the 111th US Congress by profession:
en.wikipedia.org...

Most politicians are lawyers. That's a "profession." It is presumed, I suppose, that persons trained in law would be most qualified to write laws. The breakdown includes doctors, teachers, journalists, entertainers, and even some scientists!

Being a politician normally involves giving lots of speeches, having debates, and trying to prove your case. I suppose that's another reason why it attracts lawyers.

I don't know why you are so starry-eyed about scientists. What makes you think they'd do so much better than lawyers, etc? All most scientists have to do is to convince their peers that the results of their experiments are valid and thus should be taken seriously. They suggest hypotheses that explain the experimental results they have obtained, and invite other scientists to help them test those hypotheses. A lot of them never have to make anything other than their laboratory equipment actually work.

If I could wish for a better profession to get involved in politics, I think it would be engineers and foremen. They actually have to produce results. Engineers have to design things that actually work and do something useful, and foremen have to get people to use machines and make these things according to the designs. I might also include farmers. They have to produce food, or everybody would starve.

Scientists don't have to do any of those things. I would guess that most scientists have little taste for politics, and would prefer to avoid it. But why don't you go out and find some and ask them this question? I would be interested to hear what some scientists would tell you!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Beavers
 

Good point and question.
I'm not sure, but who did President Warren Harding ever invade? (1921-1923)


Drank whiskey on the sly despite Prohibition laws. Gambled away the White House porcelain at poker.

(Ingo Niermann and Adriano Sack: The curious world of drugs and their friends: A very trippy miscellany. Plume Books 2008: p.23.)
I guess he wasn't a rocket scientist, but it was nice.


edit on 8-9-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   


We can't have a hippy as a leader.
We need to have a peaceful leader, but not a leader, who can easily be taken advantage of.


What makes you think someone peaceful would be taken advantage of?

I didn't mean someone who won't fight back or defend or protect the citizens. just someone who worries about americas (many) problems instead of trying to take over the world?

Surely the last 3 or 4 presidents have done nothing but endanger americans by war mongering?

if you believe 911 official stories, america started it by making the afghans go to war against the former ussr.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beavers
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 


or simply one that doesn't work for TPTB or blindly follow the bush family oil agenda?

ron paul looks a great candidate on paper, but so did obama... i still can't believe the first black president declared war on africa instead of trying to help it feed itself!!

england had maggie thatcher, she sold all off all the UK's assets to rich american firms, so was obviously just another puppet.

people are corruptible, whatever sex or profession they are!



True, your right on that.
But i'll be more specific.
margaret thatcher was a christian chemist.....who worked for "J, Lyons & Co" a food company, seemingly she made new ice creams, and she was picked from the TPTB, aswell like you said.


How about a scientist who works at a university or a pharma company, thats what i was getting at.
The majority of people in the sciences are athiests, we don't want scientists like her.
A scientist who's also an atheist and also a commoner, so they can relate to the masses., as a candidate is what i meant.
Yes true most people are corruptible, but females are more caring, females produce a lot more oxytocin then men and it increases empathy and interpretation of emotions, generosity, bonding, trust, men produce much less of this.

Definitely not someone like margaret thatcher, just looking at her, i can tell shes evil.

edit on 8-9-2011 by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 

Didn't the peanut farmer have some sort of nuclear engineering background? He started nuclear power school in March, 1953 while in Navy. Look how well that worked out.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 



If the United States had a scientist as president, would all problems be solved?


Um, no.

Get five scientists in a room and you'll end up with 10 different opinions.

What we need is a farmer. They know hard work, can seal a deal with a handshake, and spit without getting it on their shoes.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 

Didn't the peanut farmer have some sort of nuclear engineering background? He started nuclear power school in March, 1953 while in Navy. Look how well that worked out.


Resume inflation- how a peanut farmer became a "nuclear engineer"



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 


i wouldn't want an atheist.

Anyone who doesn't believe his/her actions in this world are rewarded or punished in another is more likely to do whatever they # they want with the money and power the job brings.

i want someone who thinks God is watching them and judging them on their every decision.

they're more likely to do it in a fair, good and responsible way.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
i think a chef would be better,

like me or gordon ramsey or my buddy anthony bordain.

we are way better at making people do what we want them to do than anyone.


we have to do all that crap and make money too or we are done.

budget, jobs, diplomacy, bargaining, pr, smiling, shakin' hands and kissing babies. lol!!

especially coordination of all stations to work together as a cohesive unit, a well oiled machine.

i am serious as a heart attack, you do what i want or find another job, senator! lol!

gimmie a shot!!! too bad we can't beat anyone anymore since 1978, legally.

we get the job done and you will like it!!





eta; we serve the people that pay us.
edit on 8-9-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)


eta; ya we are non partisian too, lol!!!
edit on 8-9-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join