Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Lumifer 03 March 2017 06:38:23PM *  1 point [-]

Ashton Kutcher

<grin>

So, lessee, a pretty face who dropped out of college, was Demi Moore's boy-toy for a while, is rich (apparently it's now spelled as "investor"), a student of Kabbalah, has a Russian (for certain values of "Russian") wife. Clearly, prime presidential material.

Oh, and he is not a "manager" of a human-rights organization. He is on their board of directors which translates to "gives money to" and was a co-founder during his boy-toy phase.

Comment author: Brillyant 03 March 2017 06:49:14PM *  0 points [-]

I agree Ashton Kutcher doesn't pass my initial presidential smell test. But I'm not sure Trump did either, especially as a GOP candidate...

Thrice married. Foreign born trophy wife. Only recently pro life. Just fine with gay marriage. Not terribly fiscally conservative. Prone to vulgarity. Bromantic af with Putin. Proud adulterer & pussy grabber. Orange.

GOP: We'll take it!

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 03 March 2017 01:24:22AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: Brillyant 03 March 2017 03:21:34PM 1 point [-]

Leonardo DiCaprio, Meryl Streep, Katy Perry, Rosie O'Donnell and Beyonce are on the list and seem to fit the criteria I'm curious about.

Acting skill seems as if it would be very helpful in a political campaign. And just general confidence in a public forum.

You don't need to actually know anything; you just need to convince people you know things.

Trump's last speech has been mostly praised as one of his most presidential. This is, in large part, because he read what other people wrote for him in a president-sounding voice and didn't deviate much from the script and ad lib like he normally does.

I would think Tom Hanks or Meryl Streep or DiCaprio could be pretty damned captivating from the podium or even in debates with a bit of a crash course in current affairs.

Comment author: MrMind 03 March 2017 08:53:49AM 1 point [-]

From my view, he seemed to get lots of headlines just for being a celebrity and running for POTUS simultaneously.

It cannot be just that: Trump has run for presidency other times, but it didn't get the same coverage. This time something else has changed, whether in him or in his sourroundings.

Comment author: Brillyant 03 March 2017 03:12:20PM 0 points [-]

Agreed.

Comment author: MrMind 03 March 2017 08:46:27AM 1 point [-]

As far as I can tell from the evidence gathered online, he was. Do you have access to other evidence strongly pointing to the contrary?

Comment author: Brillyant 03 March 2017 02:28:16PM 1 point [-]

I was joking.

Comment author: tristanm 02 March 2017 09:06:18PM 1 point [-]

Elon Musk? He's definitely a celebrity in some sense, if not an entertainer, and he at least carries the full list of adjectives you laid out.

Comment author: Brillyant 02 March 2017 10:18:40PM 0 points [-]

Sure. (Though he isn't U.S. born) Or Bill Gates.

(But) I'm most interested in considering the probability of people whose primary draw as a candidate is fame they gained through something like the entertainment industry, for example. Because the skill set necessary to succeed seems to have little to do with being an effective POTUS.

Trump is still a "business man", so Lumifer is right that it's reasonable to assume he's at least a competent manager. The same could be said of Musk or Gates.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 March 2017 09:19:44PM 0 points [-]

Don't think he was born in the US.

Comment author: Brillyant 02 March 2017 09:45:33PM 1 point [-]

Neither was Obama.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 02 March 2017 08:23:26PM 1 point [-]

such a thing had been considered virtually impossible according to most credible experts.

Some credible experts had given him about 1% chance of winning, but IIRC most of them gave him chances of the order of 20%, which hardly counts as "virtually impossible" IMO.

Comment author: Brillyant 02 March 2017 08:33:34PM 1 point [-]

Well, timeframe & circumstances are important to note here.

In, say...2012, I think a 1% probability of Donald Trump being POTUS (elect) in Nov 2016 would have seemed far too high to most.

By Nov 1 of 2016, 20% seemed more reasonable.

The probability spikes dramatically after the candidate wins their party's nomination.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 March 2017 06:15:37PM 0 points [-]

Democracy allows anyone, even a simpleton from humble background, be elected leader.

Democracy allows anyone, even a simpleton from humble background, be elected leader.

Or let me put in an LW way: if you are sampling from the whole distribution, you will eventually get some values from deep in the left tail :-D

Comment author: Brillyant 02 March 2017 07:07:21PM 0 points [-]

Ha. No.

I got that part.

The jokes, bro. I didn't get the jokes. You're typically kinda funny.

I guess probability says you're bound to miss the mark occasionally.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 March 2017 05:04:17PM *  1 point [-]

I dunno :-) I still like Captain Jack Sparrow best.

If I can't have him, I'll take Rocket Raccoon. He can deal with the Middle East and Captain Jack Sparrow can be appointed to be the US representative in the trade negotiations with China.

You know what the greatest strength of the American democracy is? Anyone can become President :-P

Comment author: Brillyant 02 March 2017 06:02:33PM 0 points [-]

I don't get it.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 March 2017 04:38:11PM 1 point [-]

I think you got hung up on the name Beyonce.

LOL

Are my alternatives Ellen Degeneres and Justin Timberlake? X-D No Bieber? Are you sure you don't want Lena Dunham to run as the Democratic candidate?

I understand Beyonce has advantages, though...

Comment author: Brillyant 02 March 2017 04:57:36PM 0 points [-]

How about Tom Hanks? Oprah? Mark Zuckerberg? George Clooney?

View more: Next