Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Wouldn't it be interesting if you could only vote to re-elect a president if he actually did a good job in his prior four years, as measured by an objective standard? The system we have now is just "vote for the guy you like the best" or "hate the least". How skilled the guy is at actually being a president is largely irrelevant in most voters' eyes. This is why the last three American presidents have been demonstrably and objectively bad presidents, but because they were likable guys, all three were re-elected anyway.
-By Caleb Jones
Just off the top of my head, here are some examples we could have if we were to enact actual performance standards for American presidents seeking re-election:
1. Economy - You could not vote for an incumbent president if the unemployment rate increased by more than 30% from the time he took office. You could possibly build in other objective economic safeguards such as CPI growth, job growth, etc. (And remember, "preventing jobs from being lost" is not job growth.)
2. War - You could not vote for an incumbent president if he preemptively started a new war during his prior four years. (And remember, "preemptively started" does not mean responding to an attack on US soil.) You could also not vote for him if he increased troop presence in any existing wars, unless those wars involved an enemy that was literally trying invade/violate the borders of the United States in a decently large scale. (Of course you'd have to specifically define "decently large scale".)
3. Crimes - You could not vote for an incumbent president if was found guilty of any crime by any federal body or official during his prior four years, regardless of how minor.
There are probably more I could come up with, but by those three standards alone, Obama, Bush the younger, and Clinton could never have been re-elected. Clinton bombed the shit out of Iraq during his first term (though he wasn't impeached and didn't blow up hundreds of women and children in Kosovo until his second term), Bush actually invaded Iraq, and Obama surged troops in Afghanistan and invaded/bombed Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and other places (and suffered a reduced economy in his first four years).
It would be nice if American presidents were held to a specific objective standard of performance in order to keep their jobs, instead of the sheeple re-electing them for emotional reasons.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
1. Economy - You could not vote for an incumbent president if the unemployment rate increased by more than 30% from the time he took office. You could possibly build in other objective economic safeguards such as CPI growth, job growth, etc. (And remember, "preventing jobs from being lost" is not job growth.)
2. War - You could not vote for an incumbent president if he preemptively started a new war during his prior four years. (And remember, "preemptively started" does not mean responding to an attack on US soil.) You could also not vote for him if he increased troop presence in any existing wars, unless those wars involved an enemy that was literally trying invade/violate the borders of the United States in a decently large scale. (Of course you'd have to specifically define "decently large scale".)
3. Crimes - You could not vote for an incumbent president if was found guilty of any crime by any federal body or official during his prior four years, regardless of how minor.
There are probably more I could come up with, but by those three standards alone, Obama, Bush the younger, and Clinton could never have been re-elected. Clinton bombed the shit out of Iraq during his first term (though he wasn't impeached and didn't blow up hundreds of women and children in Kosovo until his second term), Bush actually invaded Iraq, and Obama surged troops in Afghanistan and invaded/bombed Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and other places (and suffered a reduced economy in his first four years).
It would be nice if American presidents were held to a specific objective standard of performance in order to keep their jobs, instead of the sheeple re-electing them for emotional reasons.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.