cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/questions/p/1499200/why-don-t-countries-add-harder-requirements-for-becoming-a-president-like-having-a-decor
It seems to me the obvious next step.
I mean if other jobs requirements like IT and even accounting had started asking for more certifications and experience to work, then why the heck shouldn’t presidents get asked to be more qualified for their jobs?
The last few prime ministers in the UK have all been extremely well educated. Attending private schools such as Eton and Uxbridge and then attending top universities.
On paper they have been incredibly talented. In reality they were fucking useless.
The best leaders are the ones who seek the views and advice of experts in their respective fields. They appoint advisors based on their experience, skills and qualifications.
The shitty leaders surround themselves with yes men and sycophants
Oxbridge* mixed with Oxford and Cambridge Uxbridge is just unimportant suburb of north London. That being said Uxbridge used to be called oxbridge in 12th venture and then voxbridge and then huxbridge before taking Uxbridge in mid 15th century.
Not sure if the fact was fun, but it was definitely occupying space in my brain but adding very little value.
Thank you. On paper you would make a great prime minister.
What about on pavement?