|
To me your analogy is flawed, it's apples and oranges. The President of the United States is* the Chief Executive Officer. Candidate Trump has been a successful CEO. Candidate Clinton has not.
The analogy would be that if one could expect Trump, with his megacorp CEO experience, would be successful at running the country; then, OBAMA, with his POTUS CEO experience would be successful at running a megacorp. That's true (but no guarantee). If Clinton wouldn't make a good CEO of a megacorp, she probably wouldn't make a good President. There's more to running a country than foreign diplomacy.
This doesn't mean someone without previous megacorp CEO experience can't learn how to be a successful President on the job. Some have done it.
Nor does it mean that someone without foreign diplomacy experience can't learn how to be a successful President on the job. Some have done it.
Obama had neither megacorp CEO experience nor foreign diplomacy experience and he did it (more or less).
After being situated as President, it would take Trump a heck of a lot less time to go through speech therapy (pun intended) than it would for Clinton to go through business school at a time when the public's focus is shifting more towards domestic development and away from foreign relations except for international trade. Trump would have minions for that.
(* Depending on what your definition of is, is.)
|
08-11-2016, 12:13 AM
Threaded Mode