comment: >
  
  It'd be nice to have someone who started their career as something like a school teacher, fire fighter, or nurse. Obviously other qualifications are important but the experience of working directly with common people and the problems in our society would be invaluable.
context: Not old.
  
  
  Knows what they're talking about.
  
  
  I shouldn't have to worry about them saying something stupid if they're in diplomatic talks with the leader of another nation. 
  
  
  Experienced with politics.
  
  
  Has America's best long-term goals in mind. 
  
  
  Exceptional grasp of our foreign policy and how to implement it.
  
  
  Focuses on strengthening the middle class.
  
  
  Focuses on fighting out of control housing.
  
  
  Focuses on fighting wealth disparity.
  
  
  As someone who comes from an upper class family, I hate America's slide into poverty more than anything. >
  
  I mean...if you think ablit it, if you cared about wealth disparity you should be rooting for poverty because America is rich as hell. Our bottom 10% love better than 90% of the world.
  What we deem to be poverty is where we would be living if we shared our wealth with the world >
  
  I honestly doubt that. Do you have any sort of citation/evidence for that?
  Consider most of our European allies that provide better social services like healthcare. How are homeless people in the US any better off than over there? >
  
  Damn our bottoms 10% are better than the top 10% of Italy >
  
  In Italy i joke every time with my friends about that, every time we think that people in the ghettos in us are richer than doctors and advocates here ahahah >
  
  The age preference is the most important result.
  The majority does not want Boomers or older generations anymore. But they want experienced leaders.
  This is going to elect Gen Xers again and again over the next ten years. Occasionally, Millenials and Gen Z will also rise to power. 
  The Elders will retire. >
  
  Yeah, this is the shift between two eras. Pelosi herself acknowledges it. >
  
  The majority of Americans are one unexpected illness or natural disaster related event from becoming homeless.  I want someone to fight for the lower working class who do thankless jobs to make billionaires richer.   I need to see some form or Universal healthcare or Medicare for all, every other first world nation has it and we spend more per person than they do and everyone on Medicaid is costing us because any and every  $100,000 dollar a year medication that they have to go on is paid by the citizens.   I want to see affordable housing.  You can't even qualify to rent a studio in most places making $15 an hour.  We should  not have homelessness build motel like rooms where people can live and have a private bath and and a kitchenette.  If people can live in a tent they can thrive in 150 sq ft.  and it will be cheaper than section 8 and if you can't behave you have to go back to the tents. >
  
  Agree with the medicare for all point. The points about homelessness are well intentioned but I think it misses the mark. A lot of homeless people don't actually WANT a place to live. Mental illness and addiction are drivers of this issue just as much, if not more, than a lack of affordable housing.  There's no easy answer (obviously), but I think something that should be on this list is investing specifically in mental health care programs, as well as helping to drive the cultural shift towards actually using them. Addiction is another big, difficult problem we need to address that comes into play here. We need a president who is willing to move past archaic drug criminalization policies and work on actually addressing the addiction problem we have. >
  
  Every homeless person wants a place to live.  Why would they get in a tent, plus how many are homeless and seniors who have to move back in with relatives or how many are living in their cars,  The people want to be homeless line is absurd. >
  
  Didn't say people want to be homeless. A lot of people who are homeless don't necessarily want to be placed in housing for reasons like:
  
  The housing won't allow their drug habit.
  They distrust any organization that may offer help because of trauma and/or mental illness.
  They simply don't have the mental wherewithall to accept help and work towards bettering themselves due to aforementioned addiction and mental illness issues.
  
  All I was really trying to do is point out just how important addiction and mental illness are in this equation. Obviously people want shelter, but someone dealing with severe addiction and mental illness might not get any real benefit from being offered something like a motel, because it doesn't address the underlying issue at all. And a massive amount of homeless people unfortunately fall into this category of being homeless due to mental health issues and a lack of support, not necessarily due to a lack of available housing. >
  
  What you say is true. Most people who are "down on their luck" are usually only homeless for a short period of time. In my anecdotal experience, most people who are homeless these days are completely incapable of helping themselves or are reluctant to do so due to drug addiction or affinity to a crust punk lifestyle. >
  
  
  affinity to a crust punk lifestyle.
  
  Not a crime, why should a fashion choice relegate one to homelessness? >
  
  All I want is someone who isn't a heartless incompetent asshole who sold out to big money. >
  
  Best I can do is a moderate >
  
  I'd like to have a president who is middle-aged:  mid-forties to sixty. Someone who has experience in the House or Senate or both. Sane. Highly educated, rational, and articulate, and yes, a lawyer. I'm a raving socialist, but I can accept any president who is centrist and rational. >
  
  Amy Klobachar Hakeem Jeffries >
  
  I know that this question will have as many answers as there are ppl.  However, if I could craft a president in a lab,  they would first and foremost be competent and compassionate. It would be nice if they didn't come from a privileged background.  They should be well rounded and open to approaching governing in more of an outside of the box. Would be nice if we got a real talk weekly about what is going on in the country.  Get rid of press secretary and let the President speak for themselves.  Also as others have said would be nice to hear solutions for inequality and Healthcare. I think the job can be extremely stressful and there is not as much power there that one might think. A President focused on the people and for the people not the rich and powerful would be the best. >
  
  I like many things you described. One person can't know everything, so I want someone that can work as a team. Let the people leading the various departments of the executive tell their stories, but like you said, I want the president there with them. >
  
  there is no prefect President.  We need a leader not someone to fall  in love with,  People fell in love with Trump, when you fall in love with a leader they can become a dictator., >
  
  A perfect president would have had children. It is not a deal breaker. But the ideal president to me should have kids.
  I think having children changes your mindset to the future and or future generations. To me that is a good trait for presidents to have.
  I don't care what race , religion or gender they are.
  An ideal president would be very intelligent. To understand complex matters and think creatively. >
  
  It does.  Having kids means that you have a stake in the future, that you care about what happens even after you're gone as it will affect those who you love and care about at a level deeper than any other.  It's literally something we've evolved to do. >
  
  Under 50, someone from more Blue Collar background or adjacent, military exp, and knows how to delegate >
  
  I want a President who abandons his party after being elected and takes the concept of governering the entire country, not just his party, seriously.
  Give me a president who calls out both parties, a president who is honest and upfront regardless of polling data.
  
  Example you want to give Ukraine money, go ahead. It's a good cause and explain it as such.  Don't pretend it's another of these loans that we never make countries pay back
  
  Just want a president who listens to both parties and calls out anyone who isn't acting in good faith, not just the opposition.
  Also...I want a president who xalks out tge bews media for their bullshit, but unlike Tru.p they need to be calling out all the bullshit, not just the opposing parties propaganda.
  **I want a president who honestly explains one group supports something, and why the other group opposes it, then explains why they take the position they take. Get the vitriol and spin out of the WH
  Give me a president that actually puts the party before country and he will fo down in history as my #1 >
  
  Unfortunately, bullshit sells.
  I think that's near everyone's ideal candidate but we keep voting for people who peddle bullshit because their bullshit sounds good. >
  
  For me, the ideal president would be around 45 years old, African American and male, with a background in music and fashion design. Bonus if they have experience producing albums like Graduation (2007). >
  
  We don't need mentally ill becoming presidents or those who encourage such illness. >
  
  What we really don't need is people stigmatizing the mentally ill as if a mental illness makes you some how less of a person.
  I know a schizophrenic CEO
  I know a head of a hospital who has Bipolar and had to be hospitalized (mandated) for it in her 30s.
  You come across people every day with mental illnesses, but they keep it secret because of people of your ilk who act like it makes them inferior.
  The irony being I'm 100% sure you are a liberal/progressive who tells themselves they support compassion, understanding, education,  and oppose bigotry.  But when it comes down to it so many of you don't practice what you preach.
  The number 1 obstacle for getting Americans mental health help isn't funding.  It's getting those that have the illness to accept they have it.  They refuse because they don't see themselves as the subhuman they are portrayed as >
  
  Most major CEOs are Sociopaths so they are also mentally ill.
  Plus stating that Kanye is mentally ill when he's acknowledged it, is not stigmatizing it.
  and you also dont' know what I have or have not dealt with in my own family or family friends so you would be wise to be quiet. >
  
  Saying we dont need a mentally ill person becoming president is very much a stigmatization of mental illness.
  I know you are stigmatizing mental illness and now I'm guessing you do it out of both ignorance and anecdotal evidence of some bad interaction with a sick person.
  I had a bad interaction with a white guy once, can I say white people shouldn't be president?
  I had a bad interaction with a Jewish guy once. Cam I say it would be bad to have a Jewish president?
  Every group of people have some bad eggs, painting the entire group as the same based on those bad eggs is the epitome of ignorance >
  
  Someone that actually speaks to unity, not the facade of such. Who is against an "us versus them" mentality and avoids rhetoric promoting such. Acknowledges strong differences of opinions and therefore has less motivation to encroach on such issues. Who wishes to get at the heart of such disagreements to then rationalize if a middle ground exists and if a structure can be built upon such. Who doesn't simply accept partisan fed porposals, but introduces new concepts to address the rationale constituents provide as their reasoning for desiring such change or preference in the present. To remove the "binary" of choices that partisan politics has so brazenly and destructively built. Someone seeking an understanding and allowing space for reasoned disagreements, not a conquest of righteousness.
  Someone with actual empathy, not someone claiming such upon only those they agree with. Someone who is analytical to not let emotion drive rheotric nor directly set policy/goals. The largest role of the President is in setting the national narrative. About the country, about the national populace, and about humanity itself. I want someone that doesn't make me look negatively upon such as a prime example.
  The cursory characteritics you laid out are rather useless at evaluating who a person is. >
  
  So, you want the president to lie and pretend that some things are simply 'strong differences of opinion' even if at least one of the positions involves inflicting grave harm on others and is oppressive?
  While your goal sounds laudable; it seems impractical because sometimes there simply IS no reasoned disagreement.  How do you handle that?  How will you handle if people lie about their motivations, or are unaware/unable to admit to themselves what their real motivations are?  Sometimes giving people what they claim to ask for accomplishes nothing and still leaves them angry. >
  
  Why is such perceived as harm/oppression, who perceives it as such, how are we to evaluate if such is the case in a justified sense, are such results the intended goal or simply a consequence, etc., is it hate or a form of disagreement that can co-exist? 
  As I stated, it's important we get to the heart of such disagreements. The root rationale. Morality is subjective. A societal structure determines a morality structure as to ensure a space where such citizens agree on a set of standards they can feel secure in maintaining. So it's important we discuss values. The justification for when values conflict, which takes precedent. And why such should.
  I'm talking about achieving understanding, not a measure of support. To be a medium of rational discussion. I'm not seeking "well everyone's views are equally valid", I'm seeking "let's actually seek understanding of disagreement through empathy" rather than just assuming disagreements of preference are to be perceived as hatred/oppression. To form reasoned justification for what society should adopt, rather than a single perspective simply deeming dominance through controlling a narrative.
  
  How will you handle if people lie about their motivations, or are unaware/unable to admit to themselves what their real motivations are?
  
  You have discussions. Ask questions. Demand reasoning. Offer alternatives in such a way that should address an area of concern where if they still object it reveals another issue of value. As such is applicabke to governmental policy/law, I don't care about what people claim, I care about what they can reason. 
  
  Sometimes giving people what they claim to ask for accomplishes nothing and still leaves them angry.
  
  I precisely made this point. To not cater to simple demands, but to understand why people sought such a solution as to better craft a solution that can cater to their worry more directly, or form a better collaborative effort while factoring in the concerns of others. 
  If you'd like to present a specific example of hate/oppression, I can go into that. But currently you're doing exactly what I dislike. Claiming without providing details one can attempt to reason against. >
  
  I agree that some of the people who are homeless have severe mental illness, so what they need are 
  proper health facilities that can meet their needs while others may need housing assistance or adequate paying jobs. >
  
  what are we doing here just programming the AI to crank out perfect political ads?... 
  Alright, thanks for asking.
  They should be: 
  Compassionate,
  Tough,
  Self-possessed,
  45-65 with exceptions,
  140-165 ish IQ, 
  Good medical condition,
  Curious,
  Idealistic,
  Optimistic,
  Highly educated and informed,
  Voracious reader,
  Student of; history,philosophy,economics, the sciences, cultures and enlightenment- age political theory,
  Not having  a supernatural worldview but able to connect and empathize with people who do and with all creatures,
  Broad range of Life experiences,
  Well traveled,
  Consultative,
  Discerning,
  Analytical,
  Decisive,
  Accountable,
  Stoic,
  Retiring,
  Humble,
  Understands the role of the president,
  Seeks peace while communicating invincibility,
  Able to communicate an enthusiasm for the future,
  Cohesive vision for government role in facilitating  transformative scientific developments,
  Not a blatant Dallas Cowboys fan,
  Prioritizes development of human capital and rights,
  Bona fide environmentalist,
  Not obsessed with golf, but a
  Chess champion,
  Understands that the job is a public service position and respects that.
  For starters. >
  
  You win the mad scientist award for creating the best President in a lab. Could you imagine what an amazing country we could have if we had this person in charge. Although many ppl wouldn't vote for them because their intelligence would be too intimidating 😔