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)
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.
Yes, and presumably anyone in the position we’re talking about is somebody who would have devoted a decade to their education in the field. Do you think I’m talking about “I do my own research” types? No, I’m talking about real actual auto-didacts.
Definitionally we aren’t talking about “your average person who has a GED,” Jesus fucking Christ.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
That probably makes her better educated than the current POTUS.
deleted by creator
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).
deleted by creator
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)
I know how to read usernames, thanks.
I’m asking if paying for a diploma really counts as “education.”
OK, so you’ve just decided to be an ass because I answered a question.
Noted.
deleted by creator
So should I just repeat my question, or what?
deleted by creator
You sure? Paying for a diploma doesn’t necessarily result in education.
https://studyinternational.com/news/trump-student-wharton/
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
A degree doesn’t prove a person actually applied themselves and absorbed the information, and auto-didacts can absolutely study macroecon and diplomacy.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Yes, and presumably anyone in the position we’re talking about is somebody who would have devoted a decade to their education in the field. Do you think I’m talking about “I do my own research” types? No, I’m talking about real actual auto-didacts.
Definitionally we aren’t talking about “your average person who has a GED,” Jesus fucking Christ.
deleted by creator
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 )
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator