Bernie Sanders for U.S. President

I too must apologize for the delay in posting my response to Pro's argument. I shall be limiting my response to his introduction, and save responding to his rebuttal until the next round of debate. My understanding of Pro's main argument is that Bernie Sanders should be the next President of the United States because he understands money, and because he has a higher approval rating than most candidates. Pro has refined his argument that Bernie Sanders' understanding of money as defined by his understanding of both the need for (presumably financial) support for lower-income Americans, and because he understands the corruption inherent in the existing electoral system. This series of arguments have a number of problems, and I shall endeavour to address them succinctly. 1) Bernie Sanders should be the next President of the United States because he has high (though not, at the time of argument, the highest) approval ratings. In other words, because he is popular, Bernie Sanders would be the best/most expedient option to become President of the United States. While this sort of appeal to popularity is commonly used " particularly in political matters " this is a logical fallacy. [1] Bernie Sanders' popularity has no bearing on whether or not he is the best choice to be President, merely on whether he is or is not electable. By way of evidence, I point out that James Buchanan, Mohammed Morsi, and Adolf Hitler were all legally and legitimately democratically elected in their times. None of them could be said to have been the best options. 2) Bernie Sanders should be the next President of the United States because he understands the (presumptive) need for financial support to lower-income Americans. This statement is not unique " nor anything even close to it " amongst Americans, or even amongst the American political classes. Martin O'Malley (for an easy example) seems to understand this position, and even agree with it.[2 ]So if this is not a unique position " even amongst confirmed Democratic Presidential candidates, it can hardly be used as a litmus-test to argue that Bernie Sanders is the best option. I would also contend that his understanding of money (as defined in this part of the argument) is deeply flawed. The understanding of money is driven by a discussion of inequality, but not by the more important discussion " being income mobility (which is a sign of equality of opportunity). As it is, the evidence is strong that the United States has great socio-economic mobility across generations (ie: from parents to children),[3] and that there has been no significant loss in social mobility in the last 40 years or more.[4] These facts suggest that Mr. Sanders has a far poorer understanding of money, at least in this context, than Pro claims. 3) Bernie Sanders should be the next President of the United States because he understands the corruption associated with the huge amounts of money being spent on elections by third parties. To suggest that this understanding is unique is, I think, to misunderstand the nature of politics as they are in the United States. Once again, there is nothing here to prove that Bernie Sanders SHOULD be the President of the United States, because there is nothing here to separate him from any of his fellow candidates. All three of these arguments, however, have one thing in common: not one of them addresses the job of President of the United States. Pro has offered an alternative definition of the job of President, and I shall argue to that " higher " standard. The job of POTUS is to serve as CINC of the United States Armed Forces, and to serve as the Chief Executive of the United States, with those roles regulated by the requirement that the President "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." Not one of those arguments address Bernie Sanders' qualifications to DO the job of being President, as defined in the Constitution (Art. 2).[5] In reality, assuming that we accept that these arguments are evidence of qualification for anything, it is that Mr. Sanders should continue his work in the legislative branch of the United States Government, and not endeavour to move into the executive branch. 1) http://www.nizkor.org... 2) https://martinomalley.com... 3) https://milescorak.files.wordpress.com... 4) http://www.economist.com... 5)http://constitutionus.com...