He's qualified to run. It's up to Michigan to decide if he is qualified. And unless the drinking water has done more damage than anyone knew there is no way he gets elected. I'm prepared to be wrong though lol.
- - - Updated - - -
His right to run =/= qualified he and Michigan will find out painfully why not.
Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis
Him getting elected, and him being qualified to run for a senator are two different topics. Frankly, I don't care about his credentials, and if people decide to vote for him or not. He can get elcted or not, it's beside the point. But he is qualified to run for the position as he meets all neccesary conditions set forth for the postion of a senator.
There's a difference between being qualified (ie: meets the minimum requirements/criteria) and qualified (ie: has relevant experience or knowledge to the job/task). There's a lot of jobs out there that I'm technically qualified to do but I shouldn't because my knowledge/work experience/area of expertise aren't applicable to those jobs. Could I do them, maybe even passably enough to not get fired? Maybe, but there are far more qualified individuals to those positions.
Same situation here, especially when comparing Kid Rock to Al Franken. Yes, they're both technically qualified for the position of Senator, but one of them (Franken holding a bachelor's in a relevant field of study from Harvard) is far more qualified for the role of Senator than the other.
Honestly, he does a lot of stuff for Michigan I get that on the surface his persona can come off as fairly ridiculous but he's put a lot of his own money into supporting arts and education in the State. IMO he seems to fall into a sort of progressive/libertarian category.
However, it seems very likely that Stabenow will carry a fourth term as she has won by an increasing margin every cycle so I don't think people need to worry that much.
Last edited by Foaming Clean; 2017-07-15 at 05:55 AM.
what other qualifications does some need?
This is the beauty or the downfall of democratic system, you can pick whichever suits you best. Equal opportunity to represent your fellow citizens is not dependant on your experience, gender, race, religion or any other crietrion aside from the most broad ones. Technocrats are not just given the position because they are better suited for it. They have to earn the people's trust in order to represent them. So what democracy boils down to is a popularity contest. One that gets more people to vote for him, wins. The fact they are a carrer politician, a rock singer, a bilionare businessman, actor, doctor, or anything else doesn't matter at all.
Let the people pick their own poison. They'll be the ones who'll have to live with it. What makes you think that some technocrat or career politician will be better at governing than a rock star? Just because of his education? We've got plenty of politicians with relevant education, and people seem to be the happiest when those leeches do nothing, because it is then that they do the least damage.
He can run, nobody is saying he shouldn't be able to.
But guess what? We can all make fun of him if we like.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes. This is the sort of reasoning people used to justify picking Trump, and they've all got egg on their faces from the fact that we're more than half a year in with no major accomplishments whatsoever, and the only major legislation on the horizon is almost universally hated by the electorate.
As it turns out, people with relevant education and relevant experience are less likely to be utterly terrible at a job. Which should surprise nobody, but apparently does.
I completely agree. You can make all the fun of him that you like.
Democracy at work. The people have spoken. It is both a gift and a curse. If it's any consolation, according to Plato, it could get worse. You could live under tyranny.
Experience, education, demeanor, what opinions he has voiced on topics relevant to a Senator, those are what makes me think that he would be worse.
Yes, it's a popularity contest, yet that doesn't mean that people can't, nor that they should not, call out people who are grossly unqualified for the role. It's not letting the people pick their own poison if a minority of the people can pick the poison that affects everyone. Just because that's the system we are in doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up on go, "whelp, it could be worse! At least we're not living in North Korea!" Telling someone whose starving that it could be worse because they could be in slavery really doesn't change the fact that they're still starving and have every right to complain about the fact.
This is especially true given the fact that it's not about getting the most people to vote for them, it's about getting the right people in the right areas to vote for them. If it were a straight up popularity contest then the last six months would have gone very differently.
i think he should run, it'd be a great idea. He could write some music for Trumps 2020 election as well.
Interesting responses in this thread. He meets the requirements to run it seems though.
The only thing that bothers me here is that he has made repeated claims that he wants to fight for the lowest classes, but he is running against the party - and the specific candidate - that is actually doing so, as a member of the party that is actively working against those classes on a daily basis.