I’m Giving Away My 2016 Presidential Vote!
The below use of any gender-specific pronoun is not intended to exclude any other gender. I just haven’t figured out the right grammar for that sort of thing yet and I hate using “his/her” or some such ridiculous bit of constriction.
Welp, here we go again. With the addition of Messers. Cruz and Paul and presumably Ms. Clinton this weekend, the horse race that is our presidential election has begun. Frankly, this time around, there ain’t enough Motrin on the planet to soothe the headache that will likely result from all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over these next 19 months or so. As a preventative measure, I’m going to not listen to any of it, instead putting out my criteria publicly and whoever finds me first can have my vote.
My vote’s easily had, ladies and gentlemen. Matters not to me whether you’re a D or an R or an L or an I or any other letter in the American English alphabet. Turn my criteria below into a checklist, check ‘em off, and I’m yours for the asking. No catch. No fine print. You give me what I want and I’ll give you want you want – my vote. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
So here in no particular order, here are the things I want in a presidential candidate before I’ll even consider voting for any one of them. My vote will go to the candidate who:
- Possesses at least SOME charisma.
- Is willing to change her mind or position when presented with new facts. (See what I did there?)
- Has government or corporate executive experience. Check that. Has SUCCESSFUL government or corporate executive experience.
- Demonstrates willingness and ability to build consensus.
- Is reasonable.
- Treats other candidates with respect. Bonus points if it actually compliments its competitors. (It rubs the lotion on its Super PAC.)
- Puts Nation over party.
Ok, folks, now you know the rules. If you think you got what it takes, come and get it.
I dare you.
I haven’t written squat lately. I’m way overdue.
If we had at least some of four and six in the current presidency, things might be more productive. Even if they weren’t, I’d gain some respect I’ve not had.
You forgot at least one more criteria- …is not a lying sack of shit (rules out that ugly ass former secstate)
Your checklist eliminated all current candidates. …. but you already knew that.
“DId I do that?” — Steve Urkel
I think your checklist is missing:
Does what s/he says s/he will do.
But in truth, your checklist falls apart at #5. Because defining what is “reasonable” is a wide chasm separating the left from the right and the candidates from each other.
Then again, Thunder, our entire legal system is dependent on what’s considered to be reasonable behavior.
All evidence to the contrary…